Stiff, Patrick J.

AbstractBackgroundHematopoietic-cell transplant (HCT) recipients are at risk for severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We evaluated the RSV fusion inhibitor presatovir in a randomized, double-blind, Phase II trial in HCT recipients with RSV upper respiratory tract infections.MethodsPatients were stratified by lymphopenia (<200/µL) and ribavirin use; were randomized, stratified by lymphopenia (<200/μL) and ribavirin use, to receive oral presatovir at 200 mg or a placebo on Days 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, and were followed through Day 28. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were the time-weighted average change in the nasal RSV viral load between Days 1 and 9 and the proportion of patients developing lower respiratory tract complications (LRTCs) through Day 28.ResultsFrom 23 January 2015 to 16 June 2017, 189 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (96 to presatovir and 93 to the placebo). Presatovir treatment, compared with the placebo treatment, did not significantly affect (prespecified α = 0.01) a time-weighted average decline in the RSV viral load from Day 1 to 9 (treatment difference, −0.33 log10 copies/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] −.64 to −.02 log10 copies/mL; P = .040) or the progression to LRTC (11.2% vs 19.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, .22–1.18; P = .11). In a post hoc analysis among patients with lymphopenia, presatovir decreased LRTC development by Day 28 (2/15 [13.3%] vs 9/14 [64.3%], respectively; P = .008), compared with the placebo. Adverse events were similar for patients receiving presatovir and the placebo.ConclusionsPresatovir had a favorable safety profile in adult HCT recipients with RSV but did not achieve the coprimary endpoints. Exploratory analyses suggest an antiviral effect among patients with lymphopenia.Clinical Trials RegistrationNCT02254408; EUDRA-CT#2014-002474-36.

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of adult patients who have relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) and have had ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. In ZUMA-1, the registrational study of axi-cel in patients with refractory LBCL, the objective response rate was 83% (complete response rate, 58%), with ongoing responses in 39% after a median follow-up of 27.1 months (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Despite the success of axi-cel, approximately 60% of patients have no response or relapse after treatment, indicating that additional strategies are needed for patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL. Preclinical murine studies have shown that rituximab augmented the tumor-suppressing effects of anti-CD19 CAR T cells, and the combination led to higher rates of tumor reduction (Mihara K, et al. Br J Haematol. 2010; Rufener GA, et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016). The IMiD® immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide has shown activity in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma and has also been shown to enhance the antitumor functions of anti-CD19 and anti-CD20 CAR T cells in mice (Otahal P, et al. Oncoimmunology. 2016). In ZUMA-14, the aim is to investigate the efficacy and safety of axi-cel in combination with rituximab or lenalidomide in adult patients with refractory LBCL. Methods: This Phase 2 study (NCT04002401) has a planned enrollment of approximately 60 patients aged ≥ 18 years with refractory LBCL, defined as a response of either progressive disease or stable disease to previous chemotherapy or progressive disease or relapse ≤ 12 months after an autologous stem cell transplant. Patients with prior IMiD® treatment, including lenalidomide, prior CAR T cell therapy, and/or prior CD19-targeted therapy are excluded. After leukapheresis, patients will be assigned 1:1 to receive axi-cel with either rituximab (Cohort 1) or lenalidomide (Cohort 2). Patients will receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy of fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) on days -5 to -3 before axi-cel infusion (2 × 106 cells/kg) on Day 0. Cohort 1 will receive rituximab (375 mg/m2) every 28 days starting on Day -5 for a total of 6 doses. Cohort 2 will receive lenalidomide (10 mg) daily starting 7 days after leukapheresis through Day 3 and for 5 additional cycles (20 mg, first 21 days of each 28-day cycle) beginning after axi-cel infusion starting on Day 21. Patients may not receive any therapy other than conditioning therapy and rituximab or lenalidomide, as specified by cohort, between leukapheresis and axi-cel infusion. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed complete response rate per the Lugano classification (Cheson BD, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Key secondary endpoints include safety, objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and pharmacokinetics (levels of blood CAR T cells over time). Exploratory endpoints for both cohorts include pharmacodynamic assessment of cytokine profiles and the rate of CD19-negative relapses. An additional exploratory endpoint for Cohort 2 is to investigate immunomodulation of the tumor microenvironment, including the number and activation of T cells and natural killer cells. Enrollment is expected to start in September 2019. Disclosures Neelapu: Cell Medica: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Krish:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genetech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reshef:BMS: Consultancy; Shire: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Riedell:Bayer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Stiff:Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership. Milletti:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Oliva:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Sun:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Munoz:Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: ZUMA-14 is a clinical trial evaluating the investigational combination of axicabtagene ciloleucel with either rituximab or lenalidomide in refractory large B cell lymphoma

Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with rel/ref AML who have failed to achieve complete remission (CR) after standard induction & salvage therapies do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to inability to receive myeloablative conditioning and lack of efficacy. With the advent of recently approved targeted therapies (e.g. venetoclax, IDH inhibitors) more patients achieve CR, however durable responses in heavily pre-treated patient populations remain unsatisfactory with very few patients being transplanted. The SIERRA (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3 trial designed to address this unmet need. We present the preliminary analysis of the first 50% of patients and analyze the proportion of patients who fail standard chemo and targeted therapies that can then successfully undergo HCT with Iomab-B-based conditioning. Study continues to enroll (N=150), primary end-point durable CR of ≥180 days. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years with rel/ref AML (≥5% blasts), adequate organ function, and related/unrelated 8/8 HLA-matched donors. Patients are randomized (1:1) to receive Iomab-B followed 12-14 days later by reduced intensity conditioning (fludarabine(FLU)/TBI) and HCT, or to conventional care (CC). CC patients may receive investigator's choice of salvage therapy, including newly approved targeted agents such as venetoclax, IDH Inhibitors and may proceed to standard HCT if they achieve CR. If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows cross-over (CO) to Iomab-B with HCT. Results: Preliminary data are available from the first 75 patients enrolled on the SIERRA trial. Median age of 64 years (range: 55-77). All patients had active measurable disease (Table 1). Patients in this trial were heavily pretreated with 85% failing ≥2 induction therapies and 33% failing targeted therapies. Molecular and cytogenetics was 68% adverse risk. (NCCN, v1.2018) Following therapeutic dose of Iomab-B as a single agent, there was significant reduction of circulating blasts by day 3 (99%, p<0.0001), and peripheral blasts became undetectable by day 8 prior to FLU. All patients transplanted on the Iomab-B arm with data available showed median days to engraftment of ANC at 14 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 16 (range: 4-30) (Table 1). After randomization, 82% (31/38) patients in the CC arm failed salvage therapy and did not proceed to standard HCT. Significantly, 32% (12/38) of these patients received targeted therapy. 73% (8/11) of the patients receiving venetoclax with HMA or cytarabine did not adequately respond and did not proceed to standard HCT, 45% (5/11) crossed over to Iomab-B and received HCT. Following standard chemotherapies, 85% (22/26) were evaluated for CO. In total, 63% (19/30) received Iomab-B and HCT. The most common reason preventing crossover was disease progression. All crossover (Iomab-B) patients showed similar engraftment (Table 1). CC patients showed increased incidence of febrile neutropenia with grade 3 prior to CO evaluation or HCT, compared to Iomab-B patients prior to HCT (CC: 34%, Iomab-B: 8%). Iomab-B administration was generally well-tolerated with no grade 4 and 1 grade 3 infusion reaction. There were no Iomab-B-related deaths or 100 day non-relapse transplant related mortality deaths in patients on the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Conclusion: 100% of the patients receiving HCT on the Iomab-B arm engrafted, despite a median of 29% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. 82% of the patients on the CC arm failed to be eligible for standard of care transplant, including a high percentage of those receiving targeted therapies. On the CC arm, 63% of eligible patients crossed over to Iomab-B/HCT with robust engraftment despite a median of 35% BM blasts pre-Iomab-B. The incidence of grade 3 febrile neutropenia was higher in patients treated on the conventional care arm with salvage therapy vs. those treated on the Iomab-B arm prior to HCT. In conclusion, despite advanced age, active disease and heavily pre-treated patients, 68% (50/74) of all patients enrolled in the SIERRA trial were able to undergo HCT after reinduction and targeted conditioning with Iomab-B. These results show significant improvements in the current rates of transplantation in this patient population. This SIERRA trial is currently enrolling. For full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Nath:Astellas: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Stiff:Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tomlinson:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: Travel Support. Abhyankar:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Therakos: Other: Consulting, Speakers Bureau. Hari:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cell Vault: Equity Ownership; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Al-Kadhimi:Seattle Genetics: Other: Stocks; Celldex Biotech: Other: Stocks. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Orozco:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Van Besien:Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Sabloff:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASTX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Canada: Research Funding. Kebriaei:Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals): Consultancy. Lazarus:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Giralt:Novartis: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Patients ≥55 years of age with active, relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) who have failed standard induction therapies most often receive salvage therapy with a wide variety of agents, but very few achieve remission. These patients do not routinely undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) due to lack of efficacy using a standard HCT approach. The SIERRA trial is a prospective, randomized, phase 3, open-label, ongoing multicenter trial designed to address this significant unmet need in R/R AML. This trial compares Iomab-B, an 131I-radiolabeled anti-CD45 antibody as targeted conditioning prior to HCT against standard conventional care therapies with an accrual goal of 150 patients. We have performed a preliminary safety analysis, validating the initial feasibility of this multi-center trial. Methods: Eligible patients are ≥ 55 years of age with active, R/R AML, adequate organ function, and related/unrelated matched donor. Patients are randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive dosimetry directed Iomab-B followed 12 days later by HCT with fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3 days and 2 Gy of total body irradiation as transplant conditioning, or to a Conventional Care (CC) arm. Patients randomized to CC, may receive investigator's choice of salvage induction chemotherapy including approved targeted agents as well as Venetoclax (in combination with a hypomethylating agent) and proceed to standard HCT if they achieve complete remission (CR). If patients do not achieve CR, the study allows optional cross-over to the Iomab-B arm, evaluated between days 28-42 after CC therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint for the study is durable complete remission (dCR) of 6 months. The secondary efficacy objective is to evaluate overall survival at 1 year. Results: Forty patients have been enrolled to date and data are available for 38 patients (19 = Iomab-B, 19 = CC) as of July 5th, 2018. The median age was 63 years (range: 55-76). All patients had active disease at the time of enrollment with median bone marrow (BM) blasts of 30% in the Iomab-B arm and 47% in the crossover arm prior to receiving Iomab-B (Table 1). Of the patients in the CC arm, 88% did not achieve a CR and 65% of those crossed-over to receive Iomab-B. The most common reason preventing crossover was declining performance status. Time to HCT was not increased in the crossover patients receiving Iomab-B compared to those that underwent a standard of care transplant after achieving CR (median 65 vs 75 days), while the Iomab-B arm patients were transplanted at a median of 27 days after randomization. Iomab-B therapy was well-tolerated with no grade 3 or 4 infusion-related reactions reported. The median activity of Iomab-B was 626 mCi (range: 397-1027). All patients randomized to Iomab-B (N=13) engrafted, with median days to engraftment of ANC at 13 (range: 9-22) and platelets at 17 (range: 13-26). All patients who received Iomab-B after crossover (N=9) also engrafted with time to engraftment similar to patients initially randomized to the Iomab-B arm (Table 1). Donor chimerism (≥95%), within 100 days after HCT, was found in 9 of 10 patients in the Iomab-B arm and 8 of 9 patients in those that crossed over to receive Iomab-B, with two patient exceptions having mixed donor chimerism at day 28. A preliminary safety analysis for all randomized patients on either study arm showed the most frequent non-hematologic adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurring in >10% patients were febrile neutropenia (34.2%), stomatitis (15.8%), malnutrition (13.2%), epistaxis, sepsis, hypotension, hypobilirubinemia and fatigue (all 10.5%). There were no Iomab-B-related deaths. Interpretation: Preliminary safety analysis demonstrates the feasibility of delivering targeted conditioning with Iomab- B for HCT in R/R AML patients who have active disease and a high BM blast burden (median: ≥ 30%) prior to transplantation. All patients who received Iomab-B, including those crossed over after failing to achieve CR on CC salvage therapy, engrafted ANC within 13 days, despite active disease prior to transplant. In addition, the time to HCT from randomization was not increased in patients receiving Iomab-B after cross-over compared to those who underwent standard of care HCT after achieving CR on the CC arm. This study is currently enrolling and for full study details see www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02665065). Disclosures Tomlinson: Foundation Medicine: Consultancy. Foran:Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding. Chen:Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Levy:Takeda (Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): Consultancy. Lazarus:Pluristem Ltd.: Consultancy. Berger:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Axi-cel is a US FDA-approved, autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. This report focuses on high-risk patient populations as well as long-term durability of response, and B cell recovery. Methods: In ZUMA-1, eligible patients with refractory large B cell lymphoma (diffuse large B cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma) underwent leukapheresis and received low-dose conditioning followed by a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg (Neelapu and Locke et al. NEJM. 2017; NCT02348216). Outcomes in patients with double-expressor B cell lymphoma (MYC [≥ 40%] and BCL-2 [≥ 50%] protein expression by immunohistochemistry [IHC]) or high-grade B cell lymphoma (HGBCL), defined as double- or triple-hit (MYC+ and BCL2+ and/or BCL6+ by fluorescence in situ hybridization) or not otherwise specified (MYC- and > 70% Ki67 by IHC) were examined by independent pathology review. Exploratory analyses, including normal B cell levels in peripheral blood over time and frequency of use of safety interventions of interest, were also performed. A long-term follow-up analysis will be conducted with a data cutoff of August 11, 2018 for all 108 patients, including the HGBCL subgroup. Results: As of August 11, 2017, all 108 patients had at least 1 year of follow-up, with a median follow-up of 15.4 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 82% with a complete response (CR) rate or 58%. The CR rate was 53% (29/55) in patients with disease refractory to ≥ 2 consecutive prior lines of therapy and 72% (18/25) in patients who had relapsed within 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation. High-risk genetics were assessed in the 47 evaluable pre-treatment tumor samples: 37 patients (79%) had HGBCL or double-expressor B cell lymphoma and had an ORR of 89% (33/37) including a CR rate of 68% (25/37). Forty-two percent of patients overall had ongoing responses with a median follow-up of 15.4 months including 49% (18/37) of patients with high-risk genetics. To investigate the relationship between B cell recovery and ongoing response, B cell levels were assessed over time. Overall, of the 87 evaluable patients, 47% had no detectable B cells at baseline, and the remainder had levels close to or below the lower level of quantification of the assay. In patients with ongoing responses at 12 months post axi-cel infusion, 19 of the 35 (54%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 12 months. This suggests B cell recovery in some patients with ongoing response as only 6 of 40 (15%) patients with evaluable samples had detectable B cells at 3 months after axi-cel infusion. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NE) were generally reversible and reported for 12% and 31% of patients, respectively. Tocilizumab (45%) and/or steroids (28%) were used for the management of CRS and NE. The use of vasopressors, dialysis, and intubation were minimal, used in only 17%, 3%, and 3% of patients, respectively. Thirty-four percent of patients (37/108) had either no CRS/NE (6%) or only Grade 1 CRS with (12%) or without (16%) Grade 1 NE. For these 37 patients, the median onset of CRS and NE was 2 and 7 days after infusion, respectively. Patients with Grade 0 - 1 CRS/NE had similar efficacy (ORR, 86%; CR, 65%) but lower peak/AUC CAR T cell levels vs the overall population. Updated safety and efficacy results will be presented with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and a median follow-up of 27.1 months. Conclusion: High rates of durable response were observed in patients with HGBCL and double-expressor B cell lymphoma, with approximately half of these patients (18/37) maintaining CR at ≥ 1 year. Efficacy in these high-risk populations was comparable to the overall patient population in ZUMA-1. At 12 months, B-cell recovery was observed in over half the patients with ongoing remission. About one-third of patients had only Grades 0 - 1 CRS/NE yet showed comparable efficacy with the overall patient population. High-grade CRS/NE were largely managed with tocilizumab and steroids with very low use of intensive or invasive interventions. Updated outcomes with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Neelapu: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Miklos:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics - Abbot: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite - Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Reagan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flinn:Agios: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. McSweeney:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Alexion: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Herrera:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Xue:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Jiang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Bot:KITE: Employment. Rossi:KITE: Employment. Kim:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Go:KITE: Employment. Locke:Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite Pharma: Other: Scientific Advisor.

Abstract Introduction: We previously reported that plerixafor + G-CSF was as safe as and more effective than placebo + G-CSF in mobilizing hematopoietic stem cell for autologous transplant in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) through 100 days follow-up (DiPersio ASH 2007). We report herein the 12 months data. Methods: This is a phase 3, multi-center, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebocontrolled study. Multiple myeloma patients requiring an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant, in first or second complete or partial remission were eligible. Patients received G-CSF (10μg/kg/day) subcutaneously for up to 8 days. Beginning on evening of Day 4 and continuing daily for up to 4 days, patients received either plerixafor (240μg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously. Starting on Day 5, patients began daily apheresis for up to 4 days or until ≥ 6 x 106 CD34+cells/kg were collected. We report herein the 12 months graft durability and hematology data. Results: As reported previously, the primary endpoint of collecting ≥ 6 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg in ≤ 2 days of apheresis was met in 106/148 (71.6%) patients in the plerixafor group and 53/154 (34.4%) patients in the placebo group, p<0.001. 142 (96%) patients in plerixafor group and 136 (88%) patients in placebo group underwent transplantation. Median time to PMN and PLT engraftment was similar in both groups. Through 12 months follow-up, there were no differences in graft durability and hematology profiles between groups (Table 1). Over the 12 months, 6/142 (4.2%) patients in the plerixafor group and 5/136 (3.7%) patients in the placebo group died. Of the patients who died, 2 patients in the plerixafor group and 2 patients in the placebo grouped died due to disease progression. Plerixafor + G-CSF Placebo + G-CSF Hematology data presented as mean ± SD and n=number of patients with available data P values were NS for all variables at all time points between groups aAll patients who underwent transplantation bAll patients who underwent transplantation and had laboratory data at the study visit Graft durability (n, %) 100 daysa 140/142 (98.6%) 133/136 (97.8%) 6 monthsb 133/135 (98.5%) 125/127 (98.4%) 12 monthsb 127/128 (99.2%) 119/120 (99.2%) Platelet (x 109/L) 100 days 226 ± 80 (n=90) 210 ± 88 (n=87) 6 months 218 ± 67 (n=95) 209 ± 89 (n=93) 12 months 204 ± 69 (n=53) 205 ± 80 (n=54) Neutrophils (x 109/L) 100 days 3.3 ± 2.3 (n=88) 3.0 ± 1.7 (n=80) 6 months 3.4 ± 1.6 (n=90) 3.5 ± 1.8 (n=88) 12 months 3.1 ± 1.1 (n=52) 3.6 ± 2.1 (n=52) Hemoglobin (mg/dL) 100 days 12.5 ± 1.5 (n=89) 12.6 ± 1.3 (n=86) 6 months 12.7 ± 1.4 (n=94) 12.7 ± 1.6 (n=92) 12 months 12.9 ± 1.8 (n=53) 13.1 ± 1.5 (n=54) Conclusions: The addition of plerixafor to G-CSF resulted in higher CD34+ cell collection in fewer days of apheresis than G-CSF alone. Importantly, this 12 months report showed that transplants with cells collected with plerixafor resulted in graft durability rates that were similar to cells collected with G-CSF alone.

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 680 Cytogenetics play an essential role in determining the prognosis of patients with AML. However, there is still no validated cytogenetics grouping scheme that specifically applies to patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, which hampers accurate prognostication and risk stratification. We studied 821 adult patients (median age 41, range 18–74) who underwent SCT between 1999 and 2004 for AML (excluding APL) in CR1 or CR2 and who were reported to the CIBMTR from centers with >20 patients meeting study criteria. 75% of patients received a myeloablative conditioning. 496 patients had a normal karyotype. The primary cytogenetics reports were manually reviewed for 92% of the patients with an abnormal karyotype. We compared the ability of the 6 existing grouping schemes (MRC, CALGB, EORTC/GIMEMA, SWOG/ECOG, DFCI, and Monosomal Karyotype (MK) classifications) to stratify patients, using both the Akaike Information Criterion in multivariable models and the C-statistic. Among all existing schemes, the DFCI system provided a marginally superior stratification for overall and leukemia-free survival. We also built a new classification using individual cytogenetic abnormalities in a Cox model that included other significant covariates (performance status, therapy-related disease, conditioning intensity, graft source, donor match, duration of CR1, and gender match). This CIBMTR scheme (see Table), which is similar to the DFCI scheme except for the inclusion of patients with t(8;21) in the intermediate group, could stratify patients into 3 groups with similar treatment-related mortality but significantly different overall survival, leukemia-free survival, and incidence of relapse. This scheme appeared to apply to both patients in CR1 and in CR2 (see FiguresF2). This transplant-specific scheme could be adopted for prognostication purposes and to stratify patients with karyotypic abnormalities entering transplantation clinical trials. Future studies may clarify the relative outcome of patients with t(8;21) and refine this scheme with the inclusion of molecular abnormalities. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

Abstract Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass > 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or >/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had <6 C) + 36 Gy (only in pts with BMD) or Stanford V × 12 weeks (95% had 12 weeks) + 36 Gy (for sites >5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was <1% in both groups. There was, however, more Grade 3 lymphopenia in Stanford V (78% vs. 42%, p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 +4 sensory neuropathy in Stanford V (10%) than in ABVD (3%) (p< 0.0001). A total of 26 second primary cancers developed, 12 after ABVD and 14 after Stanford V (p=NS). FFS and OS. For 812 eligible patients, with a median follow up of 5.25 years, 5-year FFS was 73% for ABVD and 71% for Stanford V (p=0.29 by log rank) (Figure left); 5-year OS was 88% for ABVD and 87% for Stanford V (p=0.87 by log-rank, HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.44) (Figure right) indicating no significant difference in either FFS or OS between the 2 arms. Conclusion: In the largest Phase III intergroup trial of HL in North America, there was no significant difference in RR, FFS, OS, and 5-year toxicity when ABVD (+ RT for BMD) is compared with Stanford V (+RT for nodal sites >5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p< 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p< 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.