Citations

Abstract Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (Nivo), and ipilimumab (Ipi) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the full cohort of patients treated in Phase 1 with BV + Ipi + Nivo (Arms G-I). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg, Ipi 1mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm G) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm H) with a 3+3 design, and an expansion cohort (Arm I) of 9 patients with BV at 1.8mg/kg. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional 12 months. Ipi is given every 12 weeks except for the first 2 patients in Arm G who received Ipi every 6 weeks for the first 3 cycles. Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined within the first cycle of therapy. Results: As of 6/30/18 22 patients with a median of 2 prior therapies (range 1-5) have been treated; 7 in Arm G, 6 in Arm H, and 9 in Arm I. Median age was 35, range (19-60); 11 patients were male. Nine patients had prior SCT (1 alloSCT, 8 autoSCT); 1 patient had prior BV. Safety: All 22 enrolled patients are evaluable for safety. There were 3 DLTs, one in each arm. In Arm G one patient experienced grade 4 diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemia, and went off treatment after cycle 1. In Arm H, one patient had transient grade 3 AST elevation; this was of no clinical significance and did not require a delay in therapy. In Arm I a post AlloSCT patient had grade 4 Steven-Johnson syndrome with grade 3 pruritis, rash, and GVHD, and came off therapy. Common toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug, are shown in Table 1, and grade 3 or greater toxicity in Table 2. There were no grade 5 AEs or additional grade 4 AEs. Significant grade 3 AEs were: rash, colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis, and arthritis each in one patient, resulting in dose delays but not discontinuation of therapy. One patient experienced grade 2 angioedema in cycle 1 and came off therapy. No significant infusion reactions were noted. Response: Nineteen of 22 patients are evaluable for response. Three patients discontinued treatment after cycle 1 and are not evaluable for response. For the full population the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% (18/22), with a complete response (CR) rate of 68% (15/22). For patients treated with at least 3 cycles of therapy who were evaluable for response, the ORR is 95% (18/19) with a CR rate of 79% (15/19). Six patients went from treatment to SCT. With a median follow-up of 0.52 years median progression free survival (PFS) has not been reached (Figure 1), and with a median follow-up of 0.82 years overall survival (OS) has not been reached (Figure 2). Conclusion: In this study of the triplet combination of BV, Ipi and Nivo for R/R HL, therapy was generally well tolerated, although more grade 3 AEs were seen than in the doublets. In a heavily pretreated patient population, with 9 patients post SCT, the ORR of 95% and CR rate of 79% in evaluable patients is extremely promising. Data will be updated to include longer term PFS and OS by the time of the meeting. Optimization of this strategy is ongoing in E4412, now a randomized phase 2 study comparing the doublet of BV-Nivo to the triplet of BV-Ipi-Nivo. Disclosures Diefenbach: Trillium: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hong:Merck: Consultancy. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Advani:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; 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; 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; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Svoboda:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Background We have previously reported and validated that the E-IPI, provided better discrimination of overall survival (OS) than the IPI for DLBCL patients > 60 years of age treated with R-CHOP (Advani et al., BJH 2010 and 12-ICML 2013 Abstract 222). Recent reports suggest that males > 60 years treated with R-CHOP have worse outcomes likely related to differences in rituximab clearance (Muller et al., Blood 2012). In this study, we explored if the addition of male sex to the E-IPI further improved risk stratification. Methods DLBCL patients > 60 years treated with R-CHOP on the E4494, RICOVER-60 and GELA 98-5 trials were included. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess whether male sex is an independent prognostic factor for OS in addition to the five E-IPI risk factors, E-IPI score, and E-IPI risk group. Male sex (S) was added as an additional risk factor to the E-IPI (S-EIPI, 0-6) and patients regrouped according to the number of risk factors: low (L)=0-1, low intermediate (LI)=2, high intermediate (HI)=3 and high (H)=4-6 based on the observed OS using Kaplan-Meier curves. C-statistic was used to compare the discrimination ability. The 5 year OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results 1079 patients (E4494, n=267; RICOVER-60, n=610; GELA 98-5, n=202) with a median follow-up of 8.9 years were included. In multivariate analyses, male sex was a significant independent predictor for OS adjusting for all five E-IPI factors, (HR 1.5, p < 0.0001), E-IPI score (HR 1.42, p < 0.001), and E-IPI risk group (HR 1.42, p < 0.001) (Table 1). C-statistic was 0.66 for S-EIPI and 0.64 for EIPI. Incorporation of sex into the E-IPI shifted 35% patients to higher risk groups, including 110 patients into the highest risk group (Table 2). The estimated 5 year OS for the S-EIPI L, LI, HI, and H risk groups was 87%, 70%, 58%, and 40%, respectively (Table 3). Compared to E-IPI, the 95% C.I. did not overlap among S-EIPI risk groups. Conclusion For DLBCL patients >60 years treated with R-CHOP, our results suggest the addition of male sex to the E-IPI may improve categorization of patients into well-defined clinically relevant risk groups. Patients with low risk S-EIPI have an excellent outcome (5 year OS 87%). Patients with high risk S-EIPI have a 5 year OS of only 40% and therapies beyond standard R-CHOP need to be explored. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership.

Introduction: Over 500,000 bone grafting procedures are performed every year in the United States for neoplastic and traumatic lesions of the craniofacial skeleton, costing $585 million in medical care. Current bone grafting procedures are limited, and full-thickness critical-sized defects (CSDs) of the adult human skull thus pose a substantial reconstructive challenge for the craniofacial surgeon. Cell-based strategies have been shown to safely and efficaciously accelerate the rate of bone formation in CSDs in animals. The authors recently demonstrated that supraphysiological transplantation of macrophages seeded in pullalan–collagen composite hydrogels significantly accelerated wound healing in wild type and diabetic mice, an effect mediated in part by enhancing angiogenesis. In this study, the authors investigated the bone healing effects of macrophage transplantation into CSDs of mice. Methods: CD1 athymic nude mice (60 days of age) were anesthetized, and unilateral full-thickness critical-sized (4 mm in diameter) cranial defects were created in the right parietal bone, avoiding cranial sutures. Macrophages were isolated from FVB-L2G mice and seeded onto hydroxyapatite-poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (HA-PLGA) scaffolds (1.0 × 106 cells per CSD). Scaffolds were incubated for 24 hours before they were placed into the CSDs. Macrophage survival was assessed using three-dimensional in vivo imaging system (3D IVIS)/micro-CT. Micro-CT at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks was performed to evaluate gross bone formation, which was quantified using Adobe Photoshop. Microscopic evidence of bone regeneration was assessed at 8 weeks by histology. Bone formation and macrophage survival were compared at each time point using independent samples t tests. Results: Transplantation of macrophages at supraphysiological concentration had no effect on the formation of bones in CSDs as assessed by either micro-CT data at any time point analyzed (all P > 0.05). These results were corroborated by histology. 3D IVIS/micro-CT demonstrated survival of macrophages through 8 weeks. Conclusion: Supraphysiologic delivery of macrophages to CSDs of mice had no effect on bone formation despite survival of transplanted macrophages through to 8 weeks posttransplantation. Further research into the physiological effects of macrophages on bone regeneration is needed to assess whether recapitulation of these conditions in macrophage-based therapy can promote the healing of large cranial defects.

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 Context and objective Approximately 5-10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients carry MYC gene translocations (MYC-translocation+) with a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients carrying BCL2 translocations (MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma) have a worse survival. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy as a part of the therapeutic regimen for patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL. Patients and methods From the International DLBCL R-CHOP consortium program, we selected 581 patients with de novo DLBCL treated with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (diagnosed and treated from 2000 to 2010). We excluded patients with transformed DLBCL, primary mediastinal, cutaneous, testicular or central nervous system large B-cell lymphomas, patients with HIV infection, and patients not treated with R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 54.9 months. Fluorescence in situ hybridization assessing MYC was performed for all the patients (n=581) and results were correlated with available clinical data to identify clinicopathologic features associated with MYC translocation, and to evaluate the prognostic significance of MYC translocations regarding overall survival (OS, from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (PFS, from the time of diagnosis to relapse or death from any cause). In the MYC-translocation+ DLBCL group, 38 patients received chemotherapy alone and 21 patients received chemotherapy with adjuvant radiation therapy. The clinicopathologic features and survival of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients treated with (n=21) and without radiotherapy (n=38) after immunochemotherapy were compared to in order to evaluate the radiotherapy efficacy and other confounding factors. Results MYC translocations were detected in 59 DLBCL patients (10.2%). Patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL more often had bulky tumors, involvement of multiple extranodal sites, and poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 - 3.35, P= .0083) and PFS (HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.13, P= .0005) independent of the International Prognostic Index score. Poor survival was primarily attributable to patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit DLBCL who were predominantly of germinal center B-cell subtype. Among MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, a better survival was achieved in patients who received radiotherapy (for OS, HR: .32, 95% CI: .15 - .71, P= .0049; for PFS, HR: .35, 95% CI: .17 - .73, P= .0043). Conversely, radiotherapy abolished the adverse impact of MYC translocations. In addition, radiotherapy was associated with better survival in the subset of patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma (P = .017 for OS, and P = .05 for PFS). However, owing to the common use of radiotherapy as consolidation therapy, the favorable prognoses in the group of patients who received radiotherapy could also be attributed to limited-stage disease and more frequent complete remission (CR) after first-line treatment and therefore these factors confound interpretation of the data. To address these issues, we evaluated radiotherapy efficacy in separate patient groups: patients who achieved CR, non-CR (PR/SD/PD) patients, and patient with stage I/II, or stage III/IV disease. The efficacy of radiotherapy appeared more apparent in patients with advanced disease who did not achieve CR after first-line chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for stage and IPI score validated that radiotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: .28, 95% CI: .10 - .81, P= .018) and PFS (HR: .32, 95% CI: .13 - .80, P= .015) of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Conclusions The presence of MYC translocations in DLBCL is an important biomarker that facilitates prognostic prediction and treatment stratification independent of the IPI score. For chemoresistant MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, radiotherapy seems to be an effective adjuvant regimen likely due to the higher frequency of extranodal involvement and bulky disease in MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Our results provide a rationale for larger scale studies to assess the potential role of radiotherapy in the management of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, particularly patients with MYC+/BCL2+double-hit DLBCL. Disclosures: Winter: Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis : Research Funding; Pfizer (Wyeth): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Janssen (Pharmacyclics): Research Funding; Spectrum (Allos): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Tgen: Consultancy; AMBIT Biosciences (Spouse): Research Funding; Celgene (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Spouse): Research Funding; Novartis (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas (Spouse): Research Funding; Caremark/CVS: Consultancy; Pfizer (Spouse): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; Bristol Myers Squibb (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; UptoDate, Inc.(Spouse): Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 87 Background: The International Prognostic Index (IPI) remains the most powerful predictor of clinical outcome in DLBCL in the R-CHOP era, serving as a useful surrogate for the biology we are just beginning to understand. With a follow-up of more than 9 years, its uniformly staged and treated patients and its prospectively collected unstained slides for correlative studies, the clinical data set from E4494, the US Intergroup trial comparing CHOP and RCHOP in patients >60 years with DLBCL, stands as a valuable resource for investigating prognosis in DLBCL. Based on immunohistochemistry, we previously showed that rituximab modulates the prognostic significance of some biomarkers in DLBCL. With these same specimens, the quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA), a methodology for measuring mRNA levels in FFPET, was used to develop separate prognostic signatures for the CHOP and RCHOP arms that can be simply applied using stored unstained slides. Methods: Five micron unstained FFPET sections from 183 eligible and evaluable cases enrolled on E4494 and submitted for prospective immunohistochemical correlative studies more than ten years ago were used for this analysis. Tissue was scraped from slides and a multiplexed qNPA was performed in triplicate using a customized Array Plate assay (HTG, Inc) for 43 genes of interest. TBP served as a housekeeping gene. Association between standardized log gene expression and patient failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) was obtained using the Cox proportional hazards model. A weighted analysis was used to eliminate the confounding effect of maintenance rituximab. Genes that showed at least marginal significance in the univariate analysis were used to perform LASSO (penalized method to select best subset) to select a final list of genes in the multivariate analysis. Using the predictive model for either CHOP or R-CHOP induction, individual risk scores were calculated based on the multivariable model, and cases were dichotomized into low and high risk groups based on the median risk score. The model was then validated using the Lenz dataset (NEJM, 2008). Results: In six cases, tissue from slides prepared >10 years ago was compared to freshly cut sections from corresponding blocks, and showed excellent concordance (corr=0.86). On-study characteristics for the 176 cases with analyzable data were representative of the greater E4494 patient population. Six gene predictors were developed for each arm of the trial: RCHOP: FN1, LMO2, AKT1, HIF1a, AKT3, BCL2; and CHOP: PDCD4, HLADRB1, COL3A1, LMO2, ROBO4, TP53. Both signatures proved powerful predictors of FFS and OS among CHOP (FFS: p=0.0031; OS: p=0.0013) and RCHOP (FFS: p=0.001; OS=p=0.0015) treated patients. When adjusted for the clinically-based IPI, the gene-risk score retained its significance (CHOP: FFS p=0.0007; OS p=0.0011; RCHOP: FFS p=0.003; OS, p=0.001) while the IPI became only marginally significant (CHOP: FFS: p=0.06, OS p=0.06; R-CHOP: FFS p=0.09, OS p=0.02), suggesting that the gene predictor accounted for much of the predictive power of the IPI. The predictive model was then validated using the Lenz dataset for OS. The predictor models for CHOP and R-CHOP-treated patients effectively dichotomized patients into prognostic subgroups (CHOP: p<0.0001; RCHOP: p=0.0014; see figure below) and this difference was maintained when the subset over age 60 was analyzed (CHOP: p=0.0008; RCHOP: p=0.017). When adjusted for the IPI, the molecular predictor developed for CHOP treated patients remained robust (OS: P=.0001; HR 2.39), while the molecular predictor for RCHOP predicted OS marginally (p=.06; HR 1.82), with shorter followup than the CHOP cohort. Conclusions: Unstained slides from FFPET stored for many years may be used to investigate gene expression in lymphoma biopsy specimens for which there is mature followup. Gene risk scores based on the expression of a limited number of genes are powerful predictors of clinical outcome. Disclosures: Pollock: HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Botros:HTG, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Horning:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Abstract 3903 Poster Board III-839 Background A peripheral blood (PB) absolute eosinophil count (AEC) of ≥ 1.5 × 109/L is operationally referred to as “hypereosinophilia”. In general, one can classify hypereosinophilia into 3 major categories: i) secondary, ii) clonal, and iii) idiopathic. The 2008 WHO proposal provides a modern-era framework for the classification of clonal eosinophilia and subcategories include (i) myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms associated with eosinophilia and PDGFRA-, PDGFRB-, or FGFR1-rearrangement; (ii) clonal eosinophilia associated with an otherwise WHO-defined myeloid malignancy such as systemic mastocytosis (MN-eo), and (iii) chronic eosinophilic leukemia, otherwise not specified (CEL-NOS). Idiopathic hypereosinophilia (IH) with organ damage and without clonal/abnormal lymphocytes is referred to as hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). In the current study, we define the spectrum of disease phenotypes and survival in 357 consecutive patients with hypereosinophilia seen at a single institution. Methods Mayo Clinic patient records from January 1994 to October 2008 were reviewed, and those with persistent eosinophilia ≥1.5 × 109/L identified. Clinical data and bone marrow (BM) histology were reviewed, and the eosinophilic disorder classified as above. The aims of the current study were to: (i) study the spectrum of eosinophilic disorders within the context of the WHO proposal; (ii) describe the clinical, laboratory, and molecular/cytogenetic characteristics of patients with primary eosinophilia (i.e. clonal and idiopathic); and (iii) assess the prognostic relevance of the WHO proposal from the standpoint of life expectancy and risk of leukemic transformation. Results (i) Disease spectrum and clinical characteristics: A total of 357 cases (median age=52 years) were identified: (i) secondary eosinophilia 165 (46%; male ∼52%) (autoimmune 33%, non-myeloid malignancy 19%, drugs 12%, allergies 10%, parasitosis 2%, others 24%); (ii) PDGFRA- or PDGFRB-rearranged myeloid neoplasm 17 (5%; male 100%); (iii) CEL-NOS 6 (2%; male 67%); (iv) MN/eo 36 (10%; male 69%) (systemic mastocytosis 50%, chronic myeloproliferative neoplasm 33%, AML 6%, others 11%); (v) IH 115 (32%; male 58%); and (vi) eosinophilia associated with clonal/abnormal lymphocytes 14 (4%; male 57%). Of the 115 patients with IH, 72 (63%) had evidence of end-organ damage, and could be classified as having HES: 36 patients had 1 organ involved, 21 had 2, and 15 had 3-4. In HES patients, the major organs involved were: lung 23%, skin/mucosa 22%, cardiac 14%, nervous system 10%, and thrombosis 9%. (ii) Molecular and cytogenetic abnormalities: Complete karyotype information was available for 144 (77%) patients; 21 (15%) patients had an abnormal karyotype; MN/eo 12 (35%), PDGFRA- or PDGFRB-rearranged myeloid neoplasm 4 (31%), CEL-NOS 5 (83%), IH and eosinophilia associated with clonal/abnormal lymphocytes 0 (p<0.01). Of the 126 (67%) patients screened for FIP1L1-PDGFRA, 16 (13%) tested positive. Two patients (1%) harbored t(5;12). Of the 108 (57%) patients screened for presence of an occult T-cell clone (PCR for TCR gene rearrangement), 14 (13%) tested positive. (iii) Survival and risk of disease transformation: At a median follow of 21 months (range <1-174), 56 (30%) deaths were recorded; MN/eo 23 (64%), IH 25 (22%), PDGFRA- or PDGFRB-rearranged myeloid neoplasm 3 (18%), CEL-NOS 3 (50%), and T-cell/eo 2 (14%). The combined median survival was 95 months: MN/eo 34 months, CEL-NOS 13 months, IH 151 months, PDGFRA- or PDGFRB-rearranged myeloid neoplasm and eosinophilia associated with an abnormal lymphocyte clone (not reached) (p<0.01; Figure). Transformation to acute leukemia was seen in 4 patients (2 with PDGFRA- or PDGFRB-rearranged myeloid neoplasm, and 1 each with CEL-NOS and IH) (p<0.01). Conclusions In a major tertiary center in the United States, the two major causes of hypereosinophilia were secondary (46%) and idiopathic (32%). Regarding the former, autoimmune diseases and parasitic infections were the most and least frequent causes, respectively. Cases with clonal eosinophilia were predominantly male while the sex ratio was more balanced in the other subcategories. Among primary hypereosinophilia, survival was the worst in clonal eosinophilia not associated with the imatinib-sensitive PDGFR mutations. Additional data regarding clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, and treatment outcome of idiopathic hypereosinophilia patients will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Pardanani: TargeGen: Research Funding; Cytopia: Research Funding.

Abstract Context and objective Approximately 5-10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients carry MYC gene translocations (MYC-translocation+) with a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients carrying BCL2 translocations (MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma) have a worse survival. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy as a part of the therapeutic regimen for patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL. Patients and methods From the International DLBCL R-CHOP consortium program, we selected 581 patients with de novo DLBCL treated with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (diagnosed and treated from 2000 to 2010). We excluded patients with transformed DLBCL, primary mediastinal, cutaneous, testicular or central nervous system large B-cell lymphomas, patients with HIV infection, and patients not treated with R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 54.9 months. Fluorescence in situ hybridization assessing MYC was performed for all the patients (n=581) and results were correlated with available clinical data to identify clinicopathologic features associated with MYC translocation, and to evaluate the prognostic significance of MYC translocations regarding overall survival (OS, from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (PFS, from the time of diagnosis to relapse or death from any cause). In the MYC-translocation+ DLBCL group, 38 patients received chemotherapy alone and 21 patients received chemotherapy with adjuvant radiation therapy. The clinicopathologic features and survival of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients treated with (n=21) and without radiotherapy (n=38) after immunochemotherapy were compared to in order to evaluate the radiotherapy efficacy and other confounding factors. Results MYC translocations were detected in 59 DLBCL patients (10.2%). Patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL more often had bulky tumors, involvement of multiple extranodal sites, and poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 - 3.35, P= .0083) and PFS (HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.13, P= .0005) independent of the International Prognostic Index score. Poor survival was primarily attributable to patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit DLBCL who were predominantly of germinal center B-cell subtype. Among MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, a better survival was achieved in patients who received radiotherapy (for OS, HR: .32, 95% CI: .15 - .71, P= .0049; for PFS, HR: .35, 95% CI: .17 - .73, P= .0043). Conversely, radiotherapy abolished the adverse impact of MYC translocations. In addition, radiotherapy was associated with better survival in the subset of patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma (P = .017 for OS, and P = .05 for PFS). However, owing to the common use of radiotherapy as consolidation therapy, the favorable prognoses in the group of patients who received radiotherapy could also be attributed to limited-stage disease and more frequent complete remission (CR) after first-line treatment and therefore these factors confound interpretation of the data. To address these issues, we evaluated radiotherapy efficacy in separate patient groups: patients who achieved CR, non-CR (PR/SD/PD) patients, and patient with stage I/II, or stage III/IV disease. The efficacy of radiotherapy appeared more apparent in patients with advanced disease who did not achieve CR after first-line chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for stage and IPI score validated that radiotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: .28, 95% CI: .10 - .81, P= .018) and PFS (HR: .32, 95% CI: .13 - .80, P= .015) of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Conclusions The presence of MYC translocations in DLBCL is an important biomarker that facilitates prognostic prediction and treatment stratification independent of the IPI score. For chemoresistant MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, radiotherapy seems to be an effective adjuvant regimen likely due to the higher frequency of extranodal involvement and bulky disease in MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Our results provide a rationale for larger scale studies to assess the potential role of radiotherapy in the management of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, particularly patients with MYC+/BCL2+double-hit DLBCL. Disclosures: Winter: Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis : Research Funding; Pfizer (Wyeth): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Janssen (Pharmacyclics): Research Funding; Spectrum (Allos): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Tgen: Consultancy; AMBIT Biosciences (Spouse): Research Funding; Celgene (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Spouse): Research Funding; Novartis (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas (Spouse): Research Funding; Caremark/CVS: Consultancy; Pfizer (Spouse): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; Bristol Myers Squibb (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; UptoDate, Inc.(Spouse): Patents & Royalties.

Abstract Abstract 1603 Background: We have previously reported similar outcomes for patients with bulky stage I or II mediastinal HL treated with combined modality therapy either with ABVD + radiotherapy or the Stanford V regimen in the North American Intergroup trial E2496 (Advani et al, ASH 2010 abstract 416). In the current analysis, we compare the patterns of failure between the two groups. Methods: Patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL (maximum mediastinal mass width > 1/3 of intrathoracic diameter) were randomized to receive chemotherapy (CT) on either Arm A (ABVD x 6–8 cycles administered q 28 days) or Arm B (12 weeks of Stanford V administered weekly). Two-3 weeks after completion of chemotherapy all patients received modified involved field radiotherapy (RT) (36 Gy) delivered to the mediastinum, hila, and supraclavicular regions. Patients on Stanford V arm also received involved field RT to any other sites ≥ 5 cm at diagnosis. Patients were assessed 3, 6 and 12 months after completing RT with computed tomography scanning and then every 6 months for 5 years. The primary end points were failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was defined as 'in-field', 'distant' or both relative to the radiation fields prescribed in the E2496 protocol. Distant sites of failure were further characterized as intra-thoracic, intra-abdominal or other (bone, bone marrow and axillae, if not previously irradiated). Results: Two hundred and sixty-seven patients were randomized: 136 on the ABVD arm and 131 on the Stanford V arm. Patient characteristics were well matched with no differences between two arms in overall response rates (ORR), FFS and OS. (Advani et al ASH 2010 abstract 416). At a median follow up of 5.5 years 40 patients have relapsed with no difference in ABVD (n=18, 13%) versus Stanford V (n=22, 17%) (p=0.49). Central review of RT fields available in 37/40 patients found major violations with under treatment of tumor noted in 7/37 (19%). Patterns of failure are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in patterns of relapse for the two study arms. In-field relapses occurred in <10% in both study arms. Conclusion: For patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL, combined modality therapy with either ABVD +RT or the Stanford V regimen results in excellent disease control. In-field relapse was uncommon. These results set a benchmark for assessing ongoing trials omitting RT in patients with stage I/II bulky mediastinal HL. Future research efforts should focus on risk stratification to identify the small subset of patients who are likely to fail standard upfront therapy. US cooperative group efforts in this subset of patients are ongoing that use interim PET-CT imaging based risk-adapted strategies. Disclosures: Horning: Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership.