Sureda, Anna

Introduction: Rituximab-based high-dose therapy (HDT) is frequently prescribed to DLBCL patients (pts) undergoing auto-HCT. However data supporting the benefit of adding R to auto-HCT conditioning are not available. Herein, we report the impact of R-based conditioning on auto-HCT outcomes of DLBCL pts. Methods: Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry, 862 adult (≥18 years) DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, between 2003-2017 were included. Analysis was limited to pts receiving BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan)-based HDT, as R was infrequently used with non-BEAM conditioning regimens. All pts received R-containing chemoimmunotherapy in the frontline setting and had chemosensitive disease prior to HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure (ECitF) was defined as not achieving a complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapsing within 1 year of initial diagnosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and infectious complications within 100 days post-HCT. Results: The study cohort was divided into 2 groups; BEAM (n=667) and R-BEAM (n=195). The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts were comparable including age at auto-HCT, disease stage, Karnofsky performance score, extranodal involvement, time from diagnosis to auto-HCT, number of prior therapies, remission status, and ECitF. However, significantly more R-BEAM cohort patients received R as part of last therapy line before auto-HCT (75% vs. 86%; P=0.001). Median follow-up of survivors was 48 (range 1-171) and 64 (range 3-142) months in the BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts, respectively. On univariate analysis, the 4 year cumulative incidence of relapse (41% vs 44%), NRM (11% vs 9%), PFS (48% vs 47%; Figure 1) and OS (58% vs 61%; Figure 2) were similar in the R-BEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.81-1.31; P=0.83) or PFS (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.76-1.18; P=0.61) (Table 1) between the two cohorts. Addition of R had no impact on risk of relapse (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.07; P=0.15) or NRM (HR 1.43; 95% CI 0.909-2.26; P=0.12). Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age (HR 3.05; 95% CI 1.81-5.13; P<0.001), not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.07; P<0.001) and presence of ECitF (HR 1.52, 95% CI 0.54-3.26; P<0.001). Older age (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.48-3.45; P<0.0002) and not being in CR at auto-HCT (HR 1.78, CI 1.47-2.14; P<0.0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in the 100-day cumulative incidence of bacterial, viral or fungal infections between the two cohorts. Disease relapse was the main cause of death in both BEAM and R-BEAM cohorts (66% vs 55%). Conclusion: In this large registry analysis of DLBCL pts undergoing auto-HCT, adding R to BEAM conditioning had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR and ECitF were associated with inferior survival. Disclosures Majhail: Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Nkarta: Consultancy; Anthem, Inc.: Consultancy; Atara Bio: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Hamadani:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Reduced-intensity and non-myeloablative (RIC/NMA) conditioning regimens are frequently used in alloHCT for NHL, because they are associated with decreased non-relapse mortality (NRM) risk in comparison with myeloablative conditioning regimens and allow older patients and patients with comorbidities to receive alloHCT. However, the optimal RIC/NMA regimen in allo-HCT for NHL is not known. Using the CIBMTR database we compared the transplant outcomes between the commonly used RIC/NMA regimens in NHL. Methods: 1823 adult (≥18 years) NHL patients in CIBMTR registry undergoing alloHCT using matched related or unrelated donors, between 2008-2016 were included. Analysis was limited to patients receiving four commonly used RIC/NMA regimens: fludarabine/ i.v. busulfan (6.4mg/kg) (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (140mg/m^2) (Flu/Mel 140), fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Fly/Cy) and Flu/Cy with 2Gy Total Body Irradiation (Flu/Cy/TBI). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was limited to calcineurin inhibitor-based regimens. Patients who received post transplantation cyclophosphamide for GVHD prophylaxis were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included cumulative incidence of NRM, relapse, progression-free survival (PFS) and cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD. Probabilities of OS and PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for GVHD, relapse/progression, NRM, PFS, and OS. Covariates with a p<0.01 were considered significant. Results: The study cohort was divided into 4 groups; Flu/Bu (n=458), Flu/Cy/TBI (n=89), Flu/Mel 140 (n=885) and Flu/Cy (n=391). The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The 4 cohorts were comparable with respect to median patient age, gender, donor type, remission status at alloHCT, and use of prior auto HCT. There was no interaction between NHL histological subtype and type of conditioning regimen. Results of multivariate analysis are shown in Table 2. The Flu/Mel 140 regimen was associated with a higher NRM (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.37-2.31; p<0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. Although the risk of relapse with Flu/Mel 140 was lower when compared to Flu/Bu (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94); p=0.007), this did not result in an improvement in PFS. Moreover, the Flu/Mel 140 cohort had an inferior OS (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.59; p<0.001) when compared to Flu/Bu. There was no significant difference in terms of OS, PFS, relapse and NRM between Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy and Flu/Cy/TBI. There was no difference in risk of grade 3-4 acute GVHD across the four cohorts and compared to Flu/Cy/TBI, Flu/Mel 140 had a higher risk of chronic GVHD (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.65; p<0.001). Four year adjusted PFS was 38% for Flu/Bu, 51% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 39% for Flu/Mel 140 and 35% for Flu/Cy (p=0.07). Four year adjusted OS was 58% for Flu/Bu, 67% for Flu/Cy/TBI, 49% for Flu/Mel 140 and 63% for Flu/Cy (p<0.001). Disease relapse was the most common cause of death across all 4 cohorts. Conclusion: This is the largest analysis comparing the impact of various RIC/NMA conditioning regimens on the outcomes of NHL patients undergoing alloHCT. We report that the choice of RIC/NMA conditioning regimen significantly impacted OS. The most commonly used conditioning regimen, Flu/Mel 140 was associated with a higher NRM and an inferior OS. The Flu/Bu, Flu/Cy, and Flu/CY/TBI conditioning regimens appear to provide comparable OS. Disclosures Ghosh: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kharfan-Dabaja:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Sureda:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background Although rituximab‐based high‐dose therapy is frequently used in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT), data supporting the benefits are not available. Herein, we report the impact of rituximab‐based conditioning on auto‐HCT outcomes in patients who have DLBCL. Methods Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry, 862 adult DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT between 2003 and 2017 using BEAM (BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) conditioning regimen were included. All patients received frontline rituximab‐containing chemoimmunotherapy and had chemosensitive disease pre‐HCT. Early chemoimmunotherapy failure was defined as not achieving complete remission (CR) after frontline chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 1 year of initial diagnosis. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Results The study cohort was divided into 2 groups: BEAM (n = 667) and R‐BEAM (n = 195). On multivariate analysis, no significant difference was seen in OS ( P = .83) or progression‐free survival (PFS) ( P = .61) across the 2 cohorts. No significant association between the use of rituximab and risk of relapse ( P = .15) or nonrelapse mortality ( P = .12) was observed. Variables independently associated with lower OS included older age at auto‐HCT ( P < .001), absence of CR at auto‐HCT ( P < .001) and early chemoimmunotherapy failure ( P < .001). Older age ( P < .0002) and non‐CR pre‐HCT ( P < .0001) were also associated with inferior PFS. There was no significant difference in early infectious complications between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion In this large registry analysis of DLBCL patients undergoing auto‐HCT, the addition of rituximab to the BEAM conditioning regimen had no impact on transplantation outcomes. Older age, absence of CR pre auto‐HCT, and early chemoimmunotherapy failure were associated with inferior survival.

PURPOSETo compare the outcomes of patients with Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma undergoing nonmyeloablative haploidentical or unrelated cord blood (UCB) hematopoietic cell transplantation.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe retrospectively studied 740 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 283, 38%) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 457, 62%) age 18-75 years who received transplantations from 2009 to 2016. Data were reported to the Lymphoma Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Eurocord, or Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Of the 526 patients who received haploidentical transplantation, 68% received bone marrow and 32% received peripheral blood. All patients received a uniform transplantation conditioning regimen (2 Gy of total-body irradiation, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine) and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis (calcineurin inhibitor and mycophenolate). In addition, patients who received a haploidentical transplantation received posttransplantation cyclophosphamide.RESULTSCompared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations and adjusted for age, lymphoma subtype, and disease status, survival was lower after UCB transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; P = .001; and HR, 1.59; P = .005, respectively). Similarly, progression-free survival was lower after UCB transplantations compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantations (HR, 1.44; P = .002; and HR, 1.86; P < .0001), respectively. The 4-year overall and progression-free survival rates after UCB transplantation were 49% and 36%, respectively, compared with 58% and 46% after haploidentical bone marrow transplantation and 59% and 52% after peripheral-blood transplantation, respectively. Lower survival was attributed to higher transplantation-related mortality after UCB transplantation compared with haploidentical bone marrow and peripheral-blood transplantation (HR, 1.91; P = .0001; and HR, 2.27; P = .0002, respectively).CONCLUSIONWhen considering HLA-mismatched transplantation for Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the data support haploidentical related donor transplantation over UCB transplantation.

(Text above this line is not copy/pasted in the abstract body) INTRODUCTION Allogeneic HCT using RIC regimens is the standard treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL, however there is significant heterogeneity amongst the different regimens and a lack of data supporting a preferred RIC regimen. Using the CIBMTR database we evaluate the outcomes of the 3 most commonly used RIC regimens for cHL. METHODS In the CIBMTR registry, 492 adult patients underwent a first alloHCT using either a matched related or unrelated donor for cHL between 2008-2016, utilizing a RIC regimen with either fludarabine/ i.v. busulfan (6.4mg/kg) (Flu/Bu, n=102), fludarabine/melphalan 140mg/m^2 (Flu/Mel140, n=318) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy, n=72). Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis was calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate, mycophenolate mofitil (MMF) or other agents, however post transplantation cyclophosphamide (post-CY) was excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression and progression-free survival (PFS). Probabilities of OS and PFS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for GVHD, relapse/progression, NRM, PFS, and OS. Covariates with a p<0.01 were considered significant. RESULTS Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median patient age of the complete study cohort was only 33 years, with more than 80% receiving a prior autologous HCT. On multivariate analysis (Table 2), the 3 conditioning regimen cohorts were not statistically different in either risk of cGVHD nor risk of grade 3-4 aGVHD. No significant differences were seen in the NRM risk between the three regimens (p=0.54). Similarly, the risk of relapse (p=0.02) and PFS was comparable between regimens (p=0.14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in first 11months after alloHCT (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.73, p=0.009, but beyond 11 months post alloHCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.1.32-4.61, p=0.005; Figure 1) [11months post alloHCT cutoff chosen on the basis of the maximum likelihood value in the Cox model]. Four year adjusted PFS and OS were similar across the three regimens at 29% for Flu/Bu, 37% for Flu/Mel140 and 25% for Flu/Cy (p=0.07) for PFS and 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (p=0.64) for OS, respectively. Relapse was the most common cause of death across all the regimens, followed by organ failure and GVHD. CONCLUSIONS The most commonly used RIC regimen in alloHCT for cHL is Flu/Mel140, which was compared to Flu/Bu and Flu/Cy, the next most frequently used regimens. The choice of conditioning regimen, in these young cHL patients (median age 33 years) did not confer any benefit in terms of the risk of relapse, decrease in NRM or improvement in PFS. There was no OS benefit between, Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140, but Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality in patients beyond 11 months from allo-HCT. Novel approaches are still needed to decrease post-HCT relapse risk and improve overall results. Figure 1 Disclosures Ghosh: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Sureda:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: AITL is a distinct clinicopathologic entity among the mature T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas, accounting for approximately 1-2% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Although autologous HCT (auto-HCT) provides high response rates, there is a high relapse risk associated with this procedure. Allo-HCT may result in a lower risk of relapse in part due to a graft-versus-lymphoma effect mediated by alloreactive donor cells. The role of allo-HCT in AITL with advanced disease (prior auto-HCT failure, or chemorefractory state) is not well described. Using the CIBMTR registry, we report here the outcomes of AITL patients undergoing an allo-HCT. Methods: We evaluated 249 adult (≥18years) patients with AITL who received a first allo-HCT during 2000-2016. Patients receiving mismatched unrelated donor, cord blood or haploidentical donor transplantation were excluded due to small numbers. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), chronic GVHD, non-relapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (R/P) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Baseline patient characteristics are summarized in Table. The median patient age was 56 years (range=21-77 years). The graft source was mainly peripheral blood. Median follow-up of survivors was 49 months (range=4-170 months). The cumulative incidence of grade 2-4 and grade 3-4 acute GVHD at day 180 were 36% (95% CI=30-42)% and 12 (95% CI=8-17)%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of chronic GVHD at 2 years was 58% (95% CI=51-64)%. The 1-year NRM was 19% (95% CI=14-24)%, while the 4-year R/P, PFS, and OS were 21% (95% CI=16-27)%, 49% (95% CI=42-56)% and 56% (95% CI=49-63)%, respectively [Figure]. On multivariate analysis, chemoresistant status at allo-HCT was associated with a significantly higher risk for progression (RR=1.73 95% CI=1.08-2.77), while KPS <90% was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality (RR=3.46 95% CI=1.75 - 6.87). Subgroup analysis looking at the effect of prior auto-HCT (no prior auto-HCT vs prior auto-HCT), the 4-year PFS (50% vs 47%, p=0.60) and OS (57% vs 54%, p=0.70) were not significantly different. Similarly, on comparing the disease status at allo-HCT (CR1 vs CR>1 vs PR vs refractory), there was no significant difference in the 4-year PFS (58% vs 45% vs 47% vs 38%, p=0.41) or OS (70% vs 54% vs 50% vs 52%, p=0.27). The 1-year NRM was 24%, while the 4-year R/P, PFS, and OS in patients with refractory AITL were 32%, 38%, and 52%, respectively. The most common cause of death was organ failure. Conclusion: In this largest series of mostly advanced AITL patients, allo-HCT was shown to provide durable disease control (4-year PFS=47%) with a clear plateau in relapse at 1-year post-transplantation. Allo-HCT provided durable disease control even in patients with a failed prior auto-HCT and those subjects with refractory disease at the time of allografting. Disclosures Kharfan-Dabaja: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corp: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Sureda:Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Merck: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ostuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; MedImmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Cellerant: 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 Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma has evolved considerably in the past few years with availability of several news drugs as well as increasing use of multidrug combinations. These changes have no doubt led to the improved survival seen among patients with MM. We have previously shown that outcomes of patients intolerant or refractory to one of the IMiDs and bortezomib had a poor outcome. Since that time, other drugs of the same class as well as new classes of drugs have been introduced for the treatment of MM. We designed this retrospective study to estimate the outcomes in patients with relapsed myeloma, who have become refractory to the current generation IMiDs and proteasome inhibitors. Patients and Methods: Patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who have received at least 3 prior lines of therapy, is refractory to both an IMiD (lenalidomide or pomalidomide) AND a proteasome inhibitor (bortezomib or carfilzomib), and has been exposed to an alkylating agent were identified from multiple centers. The time patients met the above criteria was defined as T0, and details of all treatment regimens before and after T0 were collected using electronic CRFs. The study was approved by the IRB at the respective centers. Results: 543 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 62 years (31-87) and 61% were males. Patients were enrolled from centers in North America (n=181), Europe (n=318), and Asia Pacific (n=44). Patients were diagnosed between 2006 and 2014, the median duration between diagnosis of myeloma and study entry (T0) was 3.1 years (0.3 to 9). The median (95% CI) estimated follow up from diagnosis and from T0 were 61 (57, 66) months and 13 (11, 15) months respectively. The median number of lines of therapy prior to T0 was 4 (3-13), 48% had a prior transplant. The median OS from T0 for the entire cohort was 13 (11, 15) months. For these 462 patients, the median number of recorded regimens was 2 (1-9). The overall response and the depth of response to each line of treatment following T0 are as shown in the table. The median (95% CI) PFS and OS from T0 was 5 (4, 6), and 15.2 (13, 17), respectively. The overall survival for the 81 patients with no treatment post T0 was only 2.1 months. In a multivariate analysis, duration from diagnosis to T0, ISS stage III and number of lines of therapy were all associated with inferior PFS, as well as OS, and in addition, serum creatinine>2 mg/dL at T0 also predicted inferior OS. Conclusions: The study provides the expected outcome following development of myeloma that is refractory to a PI and an IMiD. The outcomes of these patients appear to be better than we had seen historically in patients refractory/ intolerant to bortezomib and IMiDs, highlighting the increased treatment options available for these patients. However, there is decreasing response rate to sequential regimens highlighting the development of drug resistance. The data provides a bench mark for comparison of new therapies that are being evaluated in this disease. Table Table. Disclosures Dimopoulos: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kastritis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Terpos:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Hillengass:Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria. Leleu:TEVA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; LeoPharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Expert board committee. Cavo:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vij:Shire: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Karyopharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lokhorst:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. van de Donk:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mark:Onyx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ludwig:Amgen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Usmani:Array: Research Funding; Britsol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Dytfeld:Janssen Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Lee:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustik:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers: Consultancy; Amgen,: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Durie:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.