Martin, Peter

7503 Background: Optimal initial therapy for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain. The randomized phase 2 NCTN trial E1411 tested if progression-free survival (PFS) is prolonged by addition of bortezomib (V) (1.6 mg/m2 SC/IV days 1, 8) to bendamustine-rituximab (BVR vs BR) induction and/or by addition of lenalidomide (L) to rituximab (LR vs R) consolidation. Here we report efficacy and toxicity of induction BVR vs BR. Methods: 373 pts, accrued 2012–16, stratified by MIPI and age (≥60) received 1 of 4 arms: A) BR induction x 6 followed by R x 2 yrs, B) BVR followed by R, C) BR followed by LR or D) BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts had untreated MCL, ≥ age 18 (amended from ≥60 when S1106 for < 65 closed), ECOG PS 0-2 and adequate hematologic and organ function. Pts without progressive disease during induction proceeded to consolidation. Primary induction objective was whether adding bortezomib (BVR) (Arms B + D) to BR (Arms A + C) improves PFS, irrespective of consolidation R vs LR. Design of 360 eligible treated pts would provide 93.8% power to detect 10% improvement in 2-yr PFS from 70% hypothesized for BR, corresponding to 37.4% reduction in hazard using stratified log-rank test at 1-sided 10% alpha. Efficacy population was 179 (BVR) and 180 (BR), induction treatment completed in 144 vs 153, progressive disease during induction 6 vs 7 and registration to consolidation 140 vs 145. Results: Baseline demographics did not differ between the groups, with median age 67 (range 42-90) and 13% < 60 yr, 73% men, ECOG PS 0-1 97%, MIPI Low/Med/Hi 37/29/34%. Estimated PFS at 2 yrs 79.6% BVR (95% CI 73.8-85.9) vs 74.5% BR (95% CI 68.2-81.4) (1-sided stratified log-rank p = 0.268). With median PFS follow-up 51 mos, median PFS estimated at 64.1 and 64.0 mos. Overall response rate (ORR) for BVR was 88.9% (CR 65.5%) vs 89.5% (CR 60.5%) BR (z-test 1 sided p = 0.577 for ORR). Treatment related deaths during induction were 2 in BVR (cardiac arrest, hepatitis) and 1 in BR (tumor lysis). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were 88.1% (163/185) BVR vs 77.5% (145/187) BR. For BVR vs BR grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred in 52 vs 39 pts, though febrile neutropenia (7 vs 6), anemia (7 vs 8) and thrombocytopenia (18 vs 16) did not differ. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) grade 2 was 8 sensory for BVR vs 2 sensory/1 motor for BR, while grade 3 PN was 6 sensory/1 motor for BVR vs 0 with BR. The only non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicity in > 5% of pts was rash (9 vs 12 pts). Conclusions: Bortezomib did not significantly improve the primary endpoint of PFS when added to BR as initial MCL therapy. ORR and CR rates at end of induction were also similar. Follow-up continues to assess the entire treatment regimen, including consolidation R vs LR, but the PFS > 5 yrs, high ORR and MRD negativity rate (Smith et al ASH 2019) in this BR-based trial support BR as a platform for MCL induction therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01415752.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a 5-year survival of ~64%. While DLBCL is treated using immunochemotherapy (IC) with curative intent, 20%-40% of patients do not reach remission or relapse post IC. Clonal somatic mutations have been associated with aging, hematologic malignancies (predominately myeloid), and reduced OS in the general population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of clonal somatic mutations with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods We studied newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with IC who were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records and all patients were systematically followed for disease outcomes. Pre-treatment DNA was extracted from matched peripheral blood and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and whole exome sequencing was conducted at 100x coverage. From the peripheral blood, allele counts from GVCF files produced by HaplotypeCaller in GATK were extracted for 42 genes commonly associated with clonal hematopoiesis (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1). Mutations were deemed clonal somatic if the population minor allele frequency was &lt;0.5% in ExAC and had a variant allele fraction (VAF) that deviated from 0.5 using a binomial distribution test at p&lt;0.001. Furthermore, mutations had to have a minimum alternate read count of at least 5 reads, a VAF greater than or equal to 10%, and met at least one of the following criteria: CAVA impact of "HIGH"; pathogenic/likely pathogenic per ClinVar; or reported in COSMIC at least 10 times. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to disease progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. The association of clonal somatic mutations with prognosis was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression. Associations were adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex, and the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results The study consisted of 261 DLBCL patients treated with IC. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 20-90) and 56% were male. With a median follow-up time of 5.1 years (range 0.1-15.0), there were 100 events and 80 deaths. A total of 17 (6.5%) patients had clonal somatic mutations, and16 patients were over the age of 60. A total of 8 (of 42) genes had clonal somatic mutations, with SF3B1, ASXL1, and TET2, being the most frequent (4 individuals per gene). VAFs ranged from 0.10 to 0.28 and none of the patients had multiple mutations. Additionally, the clonal somatic variants found in the peripheral blood were abscent in the tumor sample. Of the 17 patients with clonal somatic mutations, 12 had an event while 88 patients without a mutation had an event. In a univariate analysis, clonal somatic mutations were associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.55, 95% CI 1.39-4.68, p=0.002; Figure 1A). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPI, clonal somatic mutations remained associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.09-3.74, p=0.026). Clonal somatic mutations were also associated with inferior OS in the univariate analysis (HR=2.06, 95% CI 0.99-4.29, p=0.053), which attenuated after multivariate adjustment (HR=1.59, 95% CI: 0.76-3.34, p=0.22, Figure 1B). Although based on small numbers, mutations in SF3B1 were associated with inferior EFS (HR=3.25, 95% CI 1.16-9.12, p=0.025), but did not reach significance for OS (HR=2.56, 95% CI 0.78-8.38, p=0.120). Conclusions In this novel study of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, clonal somatic mutations were identified in 6.5% of patients and were associated with inferior outcomes. Additional research is required at deeper sequencing to validate these findings and integration with tumor genomics is required to understand the prognosis of DLBCL patients with smaller clonal populations. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: Odronextamab (REGN1979) is a first-in-class, hinge-stabilized, fully human IgG4-based CD3 x CD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) that has demonstrated encouraging safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy in a first-in-human study of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). We report updated safety and efficacy data from the dose escalation and early dose expansion phase of the ongoing Phase (P)1 study (NCT02290951). METHODS: Odronextamab was administered using a step-up dose schedule consisting of an initial dose at Week (W)1, an intermediate dose at W2, and thereafter, a fixed weekly dose until W12 followed by maintenance Q2W dosing. Dexamethasone premedication was used to mitigate the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Key primary objectives were to assess safety and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended P2 dosing regimen (RP2DR). Secondary objectives included a preliminary assessment of anti-tumor activity. RESULTS: As of Jun 25, 2020, 127 pts with R/R B-NHL have been treated at doses ranging from 0.03-320 mg. The study included pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n=71), follicular lymphoma (FL) Grade (Gr) 1-3a (n=37), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n=11), marginal zone lymphoma (n=6), and other B-NHLs (n=2). Pts were highly refractory (80.3%) and had received a median of 3 (range: 1‒11) prior lines of therapy; 29 pts (22.8%) received prior CAR T therapy (FL: 2; DLBCL: 25; MCL: 2) and 85 pts (66.9%) were double refractory to alkylator and anti-CD20 antibody, in any line of therapy. Median follow-up was 3.9 (0.4‒37.6) months (mo). No DLTs were reported during dose escalation and MTD was not reached with odronextamab doses up to 320 mg weekly. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade were pyrexia (76.4%), CRS (62.2%), and chills (48.0%). Gr 3 CRS occurred in 8 pts (6.3%) and a Gr 4 CRS occurred in 1 pt (0.8%). Most of the CRS events occurred during the first 2 weeks of step-up dosing and resolved within a median of 2 days (range 1-41) with supportive care measures. No pts discontinued odronextamab treatment due to CRS. Gr 3 neurologic AEs were noted in 5 pts, of which only 3 (2.3%) were considered treatment-related: somnolence, syncope, and encephalopathy. None of these events required treatment discontinuation. There were no Gr 4 or higher neurologic AEs. Overall, 7 pts (5.5%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs. In pts with R/R FL Gr 1-3a, odronextamab demonstrated a broad window of therapeutic activity. In pts treated at doses of ≥5 mg (n=28), objective response rate (ORR) was 92.9%, and complete response (CR) rate was 75.0%; median duration of response (DoR) was 7.7 mo (range 0+-20.9+), with 13 of 21 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median duration of complete response (DoCR) was 8.1 mo (range 0+-19.9+) and follow-up is ongoing (Table). In pts with R/R DLBCL, encouraging activity was observed at higher odronextamab dose levels. In DLBCL pts who had not received prior CAR T therapy, treated at doses ≥80 mg (n=10), ORR and CR rate were 60%; median observed DoR was 10.3 mo (range 2.9-18.6+), with 4 of 6 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median DoCR was 9.5 mo (range 2.9-18.6+) and follow-up is ongoing. In DLBCL pts who were refractory to prior CAR T therapy, treated at doses ≥80 mg (n=21), ORR was 33.3%, and CR rate was 23.8%; median observed DoR was 2.8 mo (range 0+-18.9+), with 5 of 5 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median DoCR was 4.4 mo (range 0+-18.9+) and follow-up is ongoing. Based on an evaluation of preliminary antitumor activity and PK, RP2DR was identified for dose expansion cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Odronextamab has demonstrated encouraging single agent antitumor activity in highly refractory pts with B-NHLs. Durable CRs have been observed in both indolent and aggressive B-NHL pts, including in pts refractory to CAR T therapy. Most CRs are ongoing at time of data cutoff, and updated data will be presented. Odronextamab has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Dexamethasone premedication and step-up dosing mitigates the risk for CRS and allows odronextamab administration up to 320 mg weekly without DLTs. A global P2 trial investigating odronextamab in R/R B-NHL is ongoing. Disclosures Bannerji: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi-Pasteur: Other: Spouse is employee; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding. Allan:Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Arnason:Regeneron: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Brown:Catapult: Consultancy; Sun: Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Nextcea: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Dynamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Invectys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMC; Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding. O'Brien:Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta: Research Funding; Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc. Vaniam Group, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Eisai, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures: Consultancy. Duell:Morphosys: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Li:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Flink:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhu:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Weinreich:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yancopoulos:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sirulnik:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chaudhry:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambati:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Topp:Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, KITE, Regeneron, Roche: Research Funding; Amgen, KITE, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: The data described in the abstract will report on use of odronextamab in a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with B-NHL

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent B-cell neoplasm of germinal center origin. Standard treatment regimens consist of anti-CD20 therapy with or without chemotherapy. While high response rates to initial therapy are common, patients ultimately relapse or have progressive disease. Clinical risk factors such as the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) have been identified, but there is a need for prognostic and predictive biomarkers. We studied markers of lymphoma cells and tumor microenvironment by immunohistochemistry in tissue samples from patients enrolled in 1 of 4 phase 2 trials of anti–CD20-based biological therapy for previously untreated grades 1 to 2 or 3A FL. Results were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and PFS status at 24 months. The 4 trials included 238 patients (51.1% male, median age: 55 y) with stage III, IV, or bulky stage II disease. By FLIPI, 24.6% had low-risk, 56.8% had intermediate-risk, and 18.6% had high-risk disease. The outcome differed significantly for patients treated with lenalidomide and rituximab (CALGB 50803) compared with the other 3 trials (median: PFS not reached vs. 3.0 y, hazard ratio=3.47, 95% confidence interval: 2.11-5.72); therefore, data were stratified by clinical trial (CALGB 50803 vs. all others) and adjusted for FLIPI risk group. Among 154 patients with available tissue, interfollicular BCL6 positivity, interfollicular CD10 positivity, and elevated Ki67 proliferation index ≥30% within neoplastic follicles were each associated with inferior PFS and a high risk of the early event by PFS status at 24 months. We identify promising biomarkers for FL risk stratification that warrant further validation in phase 3 trials.

8038 Background: Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed pre/post therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients (pts) with lymphoma on clinical trials. We evaluated 2 prior data sets and concluded that BMB impact response assessment in a minority of pts with follicular lymphoma (FL) (Rutherford BJH 2017; Rutherford ASH abstract 1605, 2018). We sought to establish if BMB add value in assessing response or identify distinct progression free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in a large, multicenter, multi-trial cohort. Methods: Data were pooled from 7 trials of 580 pts with untreated FL conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and SWOG from 2002-2016. The proportion of pts with positive (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging after treatment, and (+) repeat BMB was calculated using total pts enrolled as the denominator. We tested against the null hypothesis that the proportion was = 10%, the threshold below which BMB would be considered irrelevant for response assessment, versus (vs) the alternative hypothesis that this proportion was < 10%, using 1-sided exact binomial test. Response criteria were CT-based. Imaging was not used to assess BM involvement. Because confirmatory BMB were not completed in all indicated pts, landmark survival analyses compared PFS/OS of pts with CR on imaging and negative (-) BMB vs pts with CR on imaging without repeat BMB. Pts with CR on imaging were categorized as having (-) repeat BMB or no repeat BMB within 60 days of first CR on imaging. PFS and OS were calculated from time of first CR and estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, stage, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, and treatment type (targeted vs chemotherapy plus targeted therapy), and stratified by treatment arm. Results: Median age was 55 with 51% male, 96% stage III-IV, and 88% grade I-II. FLIPI scores were 113 low, 265 intermediate, and 199 high risk. 67% received chemotherapy-based regimens. Baseline BMB was (+) in 321 (55%). Only 5/580 (0.8%) had (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent (+) BMB (p < 0.0001). Of pts with CR on imaging, PFS and OS were not different among pts with (-) BMB vs pts without repeat BMB (PFS: HR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.61-1.93, p = 0.783; OS: HR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.20-1.40, p = 0.199). Conclusions: BMB requirements may discourage pt participation in trials and add pain, expense and time without providing necessary information. We recommend eliminating BMB for response assessment from FL clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00553501, NCT01145495, NCT01190449, NCT01286272, NCT01829568, NCT00822120, and NCT00770224 .

Initial therapy for MCL is effective, but most patients eventually relapse. Validated intermediate biomarkers for MCL are important to provide early assessment of treatment efficacy, prognostic information and potentially guide consolidation. The US-Canadian Intergroup trial E1411 randomly assigned patients (pts) to receive induction with BR ± bortezomib (V), followed by consolidation with R ± L. As a planned correlative, MRD was assessed after cycle 3 (I3), end of induction (EOI) and after 4 cycles of consolidation (C4) by two methods: a research version of clonoSEQ® a next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay, (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci as well as translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH, and flow cytometry (FC) (I3 and EOI only) at a central laboratory (Mayo Clinic). While outcomes by treatment arm remain blinded, we report here the results of the MRD assessments by each method and the associated progression free survival (PFS). In E1411, 373 pts, accrued between May 2012 - Sept. 2016, were randomly assigned (stratified by MIPI and age (&lt;/≥60)) to receive BR induction x 6 followed by R for 2 years, BVR followed by R, BR followed by LR or BVR followed by LR. Eligible pts were ≥ age 18 and had untreated MCL, ECOG PS 0-2, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Of the 373 pts, 296 (79%) consented to correlatives. Of these, 255 (86%) had baseline NGS samples, and 214 were analyzable. Excluded were 6 patients that were protocol ineligible, 20 without clinical follow-up; only 7 (2.7%) patients were ineligible due to inability to identify a dominant clone necessary to follow MRD by the NGS method. At baseline pre-treatment, NGS detected a dominant clone in bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) in 92%, with only 17 (8%) requiring study of biopsy tissue. Of the 296, 240 had baseline FC data, 9 were protocol exclusions, leaving 231 analyzable. FC detected a non-MCL monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis clone in a small number of cases. While NGS may have higher sensitivity, as FC sensitivity is 10-4, for this analysis we used that cutoff for both NGS and FC. Cohen's Kappa statistic compares concordance between MRD pairs, and p-value is from exact McNemar's test. BR-based initial MCL therapy achieved early MRD negativity (&lt; 10-4) in a high proportion of patients. Analyzing PB at mid-induction (I3): by NGS 89% MRD-, 9% MRD+ and 2% indeterminate, whereas by FC 87% MRD-, 12% MRD+ and 1% indeterminate. Concordance was high with 127 MRD- by both methods, 13 MRD+ by both, and 6 NGS-/FC+ (Kappa Statistic = 0.79, p-value = 0.031). By NGS, of 12 pts MRD+ at I3, 7 became MRD- at EOI, and 4 remained MRD+ (1 indeterminate). Analyzing at EOI: MRD- rates were 91% by NGS analysis of PB (147/161) and 90% in BM (96/107), vs 95% (174/183) by FC in PB. As some were indeterminate, only 7% were MRD+ by NGS in BM, 3% by NGS in PB and 5% by FC. In 88 informative samples with EOI NGS in both BM and PB, concordance was high, with 81 negative in both, 1 positive in both and 6 BM+/PB- (Kappa Statistic = 0.23, p-value = 0.031). Of 101 pts with data at all 3 timepoints, I3, EOI, and C4: 7 were MRD+ at I3, 5 of these were MRD- at EOI, but 2 of these 5 were again MRD+ at C4. Of 2 MRD+ EOI, 1 became MRD- at C4. By FC, of 17 patients MRD+ at I3, 11 (65%) became MRD- at EOI. MRD status correlated with progression-free survival (PFS). Due to the low MRD+ rate at EOI and C4, we focus here on MRD status at I3 (10-4 cutoff for both NGS and FC), using a landmark analysis of 4 months on study. Median PFS (Figure) for pts MRD- at I3 mid-induction was 58.9 months by either NGS or FC, while for those MRD+ by NGS it was 26.9 months, vs 29.9 months MRD+ by FC. Conclusions: Both NGS and FC were feasible to assess MRD status in this multi-center trial. Results of NGS and FC are concordant at the 10-4 cutoff. NGS can be more sensitive when adequate material is available, and analysis of this subgroup is ongoing. The high MRD- rate (≥ 90%) at EOI in this BR-based trial and MRD correlation with PFS supports its use as a platform for MCL trials, although consolidation may confound PFS. Early interim MRD testing at cycle 3 identifies a high-risk population who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies. Analysis by treatment arm with longer follow-up, as well as comparison with centrally reviewed PET/CTs included in this study, will help define the most informative method(s), cutoff values, and timing for assessing degree of response in MCL. Figure. Disclosures Smith: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Parekh:Foundation Medicine Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Background REGN1979 is an anti-CD20 x anti-CD3 bispecific IgG4 antibody (Ab) modified to reduce Fc binding. Engaging both targets results in CD20-specific, local T-cell activation and cytotoxicity, a mechanism of action distinct from standard anti-CD20 Abs. Dose escalation is complete and a recommended Ph 2 dose has been determined. We report Ph 1 safety and efficacy results of REGN1979 in patients (pts) with R/R B-NHL previously treated with anti-CD20 Abs, including pts with progressive disease after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell (CAR T) therapy. Methods Primary objectives are to determine safety, tolerability, and occurrence of dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Other objectives are to assess antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics. Eligible pts with R/R B-NHL must have received prior CD20-directed therapy. Treatment consists of 12 weekly intravenous doses of REGN1979 followed by every 2-week dosing for 12 doses (36 weeks total). Results As of June 3, 2019, 96 pts (diffuse large cell B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] [n=53], follicular lymphoma [FL] grade [Gr] 1-3a [n=25], mantle cell lymphoma [n=6], marginal zone lymphoma [n=6], or other [FL Gr 3b, FL unknown, FL ungraded, or Waldenström macroglobulinemia ] [n=6]) were treated with REGN1979 0.03-320 mg and received a median of 9 doses (range 1-24). Pts had a median of 3 prior lines of therapy (range 1-11); 12 pts with prior CAR T therapy were included in the safety analysis of which 6 were included in the efficacy analysis. Twenty-four pts remain on treatment; 18 completed treatment; 54 discontinued early (35 due to progressive disease [PD]). No pts with B-NHL experienced a DLT. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were pyrexia (n=74), CRS (n=55), chills (n=49), infections and infestations (n=47), fatigue (n=36), increased C-reactive protein (n=32), and anemia (n=32). Seven pts experienced Gr 3 CRS. The severity of CRS symptoms declined through optimized pre-medication even with REGN1979 dose escalation. Most common Gr 3 or 4 AEs were anemia (n=19), decreased lymphocytes/lymphopenia (n=19), infections and infestations (n=18), decreased neutrophils/neutropenia (n=17), and hypophosphatemia/decreased blood phosphorus (n=16). No pts had seizures or grade 4/5 neurologic AEs. Gr 3 neurologic AEs included depressed level of consciousness (unrelated), somnolence, and syncope (n=1 each). Neurological events were transient and none required permanent treatment termination. Five pts discontinued due to AEs: Gr 3 hemolysis; Gr 3 fatigue; Gr 2 and Gr 3 pneumonia; and Gr 3 neck abscess (1 each). Eleven pts died on study: PD (n=6), gastric perforation (n=1), cardiac arrest (n=1), lung infection (n=1), multi-organ failure (n=1), pneumonia (n=1). The Table and Figure show efficacy and duration of response for R/R DLBCL by dose level. Pts who had opportunity for response assessment at Week 12 were included in the analysis of response. Emerging data suggest increasing efficacy with higher doses in R/R DLBCL, with 5 of 8 pts treated at 80/160/320 mg achieving CR; at these doses 2 of 3 pts achieved CR after failure of CAR T therapy. Data also suggest increasing efficacy with increasing doses in R/R FL, but maximum efficacy appears to be achieved at lower doses than in DLBCL; in pts with FL Gr 1-3a treated at ≥5 mg, the ORR was 93% (13/14), and the CR rate was 71.4% (10/14). REGN1979 concentrations in serum increased linearly with dose during the first five weeks. Elevated levels of serum cytokines were observed, mostly in week 1, and no correlation was observed with clinical efficacy. Immunohistological analysis of malignant lymph node tissue demonstrated that pts with high and low CD20 expression achieved clinical response. Relapse among responders was seen with either maintenance or loss of CD20 expression, suggesting antigen-dependent and independent disease escape mechanisms. Conclusions/Summary Tolerability of REGN1979 has been demonstrated at doses up to the final dose level of 320 mg weekly, with no observed DLTs in pts with B-NHL. No pts discontinued due to neurologic AE. Activity was observed broadly in heavily pretreated R/R B-NHL pts treated with REGN1979. With increasing dose, more resistant tumors such as R/R DLBCL are showing benefit, even in pts with prior CAR T therapy failure. Based on these efficacy findings, a global Ph 2 study is underway to evaluate REGN1979 monotherapy in R/R FL Gr 1-3a, R/R DLBCL, and other R/R B-NHL subtypes. Disclosures Bannerji: AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, travel support; Gilead: Other: travel support; Gilead: Other: travel support; Pharmacyclics: Other: travel support; Merck: Other: travel support, Patents & Royalties: IP rights; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Other: travel support, Patents & Royalties: IP rights; Pharmacyclics: Other: travel support. Allan:Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Arnason:Celgene/Juno: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Brown:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Data safety monitoring boards ; Sun Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Sun: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Invectys: Other: other; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dynamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; Catapult Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy. Advani:Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Regeneron: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. O'Brien:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Duell:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Charnas:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ambati:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Adriaens:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ufkin:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhu:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Li:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gasparini:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ibrahim:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Jankovic:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fiaschi:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Aina:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Deering:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hamon:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thurston:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Murphy:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Weinreich:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yancopoulos:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lowy:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sternberg:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Topp:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: The data described in the abstract will report on use REGN1979 in a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with B-NHL.

Introduction. The VES-13 is a simple, self-reported, function based tool originally developed to screen community-dwelling populations to identify persons age 65 years and older at risk of death and functional decline, including death in the next 12 months. The VES-13 items include patient's age, self-rated overall health status, functional limitations in physical activity, and functional disabilities in more complex activities of daily living. As part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study, we collected self-reported VES-13 data at study enrollment on all participants regardless of age, and here we report on the prevalence of vulnerable status defined by the VES-13 and its association with 1-year mortality, overall, stratified at age 65 years, and in the subset of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with immunochemotherapy. Methods. From 7/2015 to 6/2017, 3253 participants with NHL were enrolled within 6 months of their diagnosis into the LEO cohort. 2004 were evaluable on VES-13, and 1183 (59%) completed it before the initiation of therapy. VES-13 scores range from a minimum of 0 (low risk for decline) to a maximum of 10 (greatest risk for decline), and a score ≥3 was classified as vulnerable. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted using a standard protocol, and participants were contacted every 6 months for the first three years and then annually thereafter to identify outcomes. Medical records were reviewed by LEO clinicians to classify cause of death according to a standard protocol. Therapy was determined by the treating physician, and this was independent of knowledge of the VES-13 score. The association of VES-13 with 1-year mortality from date of diagnosis was estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression models, which also provided model c-statistics. Results. The median age of the 2004 participants in this analysis was 62 years (range 18-94); 57% were male; 54% were ≥65 years; and 28% had a normal body mass index (BMI), 1% were underweight, 35% were overweight, and 36% were obese. Clinically, 59% of participants had an aggressive subtype, 65% were stage III-IV, 24% had B-symptoms, and 11% had a performance status (PS) of ≥2. Overall, 28% of participants were classified as vulnerable (95% CI 26%-30%), with a higher prevalence among those completing the survey after initiation of therapy (38%, 95% 34%-41%) versus before initiation of therapy (22%, 95% CI 20%-24%), and a higher prevalence for those ≥65 years (32%, 95% CI 29%-34%) versus &lt;65 (25%, 95% CI 22%-28%). During the first year of follow-up, there were 147 deaths, with 61% due to lymphoma, 14% therapy-related, 12% due to another malignancy, 3% other causes, and 10% unknown. Significant univariate predictors of 1-year mortality included vulnerable status, older age, PS 2+, stage III-IV, aggressive subtype, lower quality of life score, lower BMI, and 1 or more comorbidities, and were included the backward stepwise modeling. Vulnerable status (OR=3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96) was retained in the final model that also included age, PS, stage, and NHL subtype (Table), with a model c-statistic of 0.81. As shown in the Table, these associations were similar whether VES-13 was assessed before (c-statistic 0.77) or after (c-statistic 0.81) initiation of therapy. After adjustment for age, PS, stage and NHL subtype, vulnerable status predicted 1-year mortality in participants ≥65 years (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.15-3.36; model c-statistic 0.80) as well as &lt;65 years (OR=6.38, 95% CI 3.07-13.3; model c-statistic 0.83). Finally, in the DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy (N=521), vulnerable status (38% of patients) also predicted 1-year mortality (OR=2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.26) after adjusting for age, PS and stage (model c-statistic 0.78). Conclusion. Based on a self-administered VES-13, 28% of newly diagnosed NHL patients in the LEO cohort were classified as vulnerable, including 25% of those &lt;65 years, and vulnerable status was a strong predictor of 1-year-mortality, even in the subset of DLBCL patients treated with presumed curative intent. These results highlight the potential value of screening for vulnerable status overall and across a wider age spectrum in order to optimize patient management and reduce early mortality. Disclosures Martin: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Casulo:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maurer:Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nastoupil:Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rutherford:Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Waldenstršms macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, which is highly sensitive to 20S proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib. However, clinical resistance to the drug can be observed early at onset of therapy (primary or inherent resistance) or develop over time, through repeated exposure to the drug (acquired resistance). Although prior investigations into the biological mechanisms associated with bortezomib resistance (BR) have identified aberrations at the genomic (PSMB5 mutation) and transcriptional level (loss of XPB-1), there is limited data on the epigenetic abnormalities that support resistance to 20S proteasome inhibition. With this in mind, we conducted a comprehensive methylation and mRNA expression analysis in WM cells focusing on the molecular patterns that characterize inherent BR (iBR) as well as acquired BR (aBR). Materials and Methods: Bortezomib sensitive (BS) human WM cell lines, BCWM.1 and MWCL-1, the iBR WM cell line RPCI-WM1 (developed from a bortezomib-refractory WM patient) as well as aBR subclones (BCWM.1/BR, MWCL-1/BR) were used in the study. Methylation status of WM cells was profiled by Illumina Infinium 450k methylation array. Methylation IDAT files were background subtracted using GenomeStudio v1.9. Beta mixture quantile dilation (BMIQ) method in R watermelon package was used to adjust type II probes into distribution characteristic of type I probes. For each gene, probes were partitioned into 6 regions using R IMA package and the ones belonging to the same region were averaged, including transcription start sites (TSS; both 200 bp and 1500 bp upstream), 5' untranslated region (UTR), and 3'UTR, the first exon, and genebody. Gene regions showing a significant adjusted p-value and a beta difference of >0.1 or <-0.1 were selected for differential hypermethylation and hypomethylation, respectively. Correlation with gene expression was conducted only on genes showing >1.5 fold change in expression. Overview of methodology is shown in Figure 1. Results: We first assessed the differential methylation pattern (TSS, 200bp upstream of gene body) of bortezomib-sensitive (BS, BCWM.1, IC50 6nM) and iBR cells, (RPCI-WM1). A total of 3,801 hypermethylated and 1,865 hypomethylated DNA regions were observed in iBR cells relative to BS cells (Figure 2A). In iBR cells, a negative correlation between hypermethylated DNA and corresponding gene expression was found in 1,039 genes (Spearman r = -0.12) (Figure 2B). In parallel, we compared the methylation pattern (TSS 200bp) of BS WM cells (BCWM.1 and MWCL-1) with their aBR derivatives, which display ~20 – 50 fold resistance to bortezomib. aBR subclones showed differential hypermethylation of 1,521 DNA regions and hypomethylation of 651 genomic regions relative to BS WM cells. These findings were not unexpected as aBR cell lines, being derivatives of BS WM cells, are clonally related to the former, whereas iBR cells are derived from a different clone. Meta-analysis of iBR and aBR followed by pathway enrichment (NextBio, Illumina Inc), revealed a significant clustering of commonly hypermethylated genes within the Validated Transcriptional Targets of TP63 isoforms Canonical Pathway (p<1.9-E5, Figure 2C) and the CEBPA binding site Geneset 2 (p<8.2-E9, Figure 2D); pathways whose genes are actively involved in suppression of cell growth and differentiation. Further validation and functional relevance of candidate gene targets from this analysis, which are relevant to WM pathobiology, are currently being investigated. Conclusion: This is the first study to examine and correlate the global methylation and gene expression profiles in WM tumor cells that are inherently wired to resist 20S proteasome inhibition as well as tumor cells, which have acquired resistance through continuous exposure to bortezomib. Although considerable differences were observed in the methylation profiles of WM cells displaying inherent vs. acquired resistance, a number of common genes emerged and pointed towards transcriptional repressors, whose inactivation through methylation has been linked to other cancers. Altogether, these findings uncover cellular systems in WM cells, which are affected by DNA methylation, subsequent mRNA suppression and which may be associated as a whole with both inherent and acquired forms of bortezomib resistance. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.