Kahl, Brad S.

Abstract Purpose: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). Results: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively (P = 0.04). One-year DFS rates with BR-R versus BR-LR were 85% versus 67%, respectively (P = 0.0009). This was due to an imbalance in CR rates post-BR induction and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3–4 AEs for BVR versus BR were neutropenia and sensory neuropathy (12% vs <1%); 83% of the latter occurred with intravenous bortezomib. The most common grade 3–4 AEs related to LR versus rituximab maintenance were neutropenia 66% versus 21%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and febrile neutropenia 10% versus 2%, respectively (P = 0.05). The overall treatment-related mortality was 1.4%. With 5-year median follow-up, 3-year PFS rates for BR-R, BVR-R, and BR-LR were 77%, 82%, and 76%, respectively (P = 0.36) with OS rates of 87%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (P = 0.79). For prognostication, CR rate and POD-24 were associated with survival. Conclusions: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL.

Abstract Background: This is an initial report of a correlative laboratory study of an ECOG clinical trial, E2903, to investigate an array of prognostic factors that are potentially associated with the clinical outcome in previously treated, high risk Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients. The ultimate goal of this study is to develop a prognostic model for this group of patients. Method: We have previously reported (ASH, 2007) on initial clinical and toxicity results using a combination of PCR followed by Campath. To date we have clinical response data on 37 patients and have conducted correlative prognostic factor analysis on these patients at entry to the study. The prognostic parameters assessed were fluorescence interphase hybridization (FISH) panel, CD38, ZAP-70 and IGVH (mutated vs. unmutated) status and plasma levels of pro- and anti-angiogenic cytokines. In addition, features such as clinical stage, age, sex and laboratory parameters including total white blood count, absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) and beta 2 microglobulin (b2m) were studied as predictors of response to PCR. Results: As of July 2008, the response data for the first 41 (the accrual goal is 110) patients who started the induction treatment are available. Of these 41, 3 patients are ineligible and one patient had no response data. The median age was 63 (range 51–76) with 29 males and 8 females, median b2m was 4 (range 2–28), 11 (31%) were Rai stage 0–2, and 26 (69%) were Rai 3–4. The median number of prior treatments was 2 (range 1–5); 15 of 23 (65%) patients tested for IGVH were unmutated, while on FISH analysis 4 had del 6q, 8 had del 11q, 4 had del 17p and 30 patients had complex FISH defects (>1 defect). Despite the prevalence of high risk features in this cohort of patients, 17 out of 37 responded (best response=partial response), 18 were stable and 2 had progressive disease with an overall response rate of 46%. Prognostic parameters most strongly associated with a clinical response included CD38 negative (p=0.008), ZAP-70 negative status (p=0.01) and mutated status (p=0.03). Responses were independent of age, sex, b2m, ALC, number of prior therapy or FISH defects. Responders showed a prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to the PFS of non-responders (i.e., 2-yr PFS 29% vs. 0%, respectively, p<0.0001). Prognostic parameters most strongly associated with PFS included being both ZAP-70 negative (p=0.0009) and CD38 negative (p=0.004). Also, ZAP-70 negative and CD38 negative status was a strong predictor of favorable PFS (p=0.002). Mutated status was borderline significant (p=0.07) in univariate analysis and there was no obvious correlation of baseline angiogenic cytokine plasma levels with PFS. These results also hold in a multivariable Cox model. In the Cox model, mutated status was significantly associated with PFS (HR=0.2, p=0.01). Conclusion: We believe that the PCR regimen is highly effective at inducing responses in previously treated relapsed or refractory CLL patients who carry high risk prognostic markers. Thus, while no CRs were seen all but 2 patients had a PR or were stable after 6 cycles of PCR. The prognostic parameters most strongly associated with predictors of clinical outcome appear to be ZAP-70, CD38 and mutation status. The ability to attain a response also appears to be important for achieving a prolonged PFS. In summary, we believe that the strong clinical activity of PCR in a high risk group of CLL patients provides more evidence for pursuing the regimen as a platform for other combinations. In addition, we have generated a first level prognostic model that will continue to be refined as we proceed to complete this trial.

Abstract BACKGROUND: SGN-40 is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD40. Upon binding to CD40, SGN-40 triggers pro-apoptotic signal transduction pathways and mediates effector cell functions (ADCC and ADCP). SGN-40 demonstrated preliminary anti-tumor activity in a phase 1 study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients (ASH 2006, Abstract 695). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, phase 2, open-label study to determine the overall response rate and toxicity profile of SGN-40 in patients with relapsed DLBCL. Tumor samples were assessed by a central lab for pathology confirmation and CD40 expression. Eligible patients had de novo or transformed DLBCL at diagnosis and were excluded if previously treated for indolent lymphoma. Required prior therapy consisted of combination chemotherapy with rituximab and, if eligible, autologous stem cell transplantation. Patients received 6 intravenous infusions of SGN-40 over 5 weeks (Cycle 1) with intra-patient dose loading (1 mg/kg on Day 1; 2 mg/kg on Day 4; 4 mg/kg on Day 8) and 8 mg/kg/wk thereafter. Responding patients and those with stable disease were eligible to continue therapy until disease progression or a maximum of 12 cycles. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (28 M, 18 F), with a median age of 72 years (range 17–85), were enrolled at 10 centers in the US. Patients were heavily pre-treated, with a median of 4 prior systemic chemotherapy regimens (range 1–10). Immunohistochemistry analysis of patient tumor samples demonstrated high expression of CD40 in all patients with the exception of 1 patient who was negative. Thirty-eight of the 46 patients met predefined criteria for evaluation (completed dose loading and had no major protocol violations). Best responses seen were CR (n=2, 5%) and PR (n=2, 5%), yielding an ORR of 10%. Furthermore, 9 (24%) patients had SD as best response. Reductions in tumor size were seen in approximately one-third of patients. Twenty (53%) patients had PD and 5 (13%) patients have yet to be assessed. Treatment with SGN-40 was generally well tolerated. Grade 3/4 events that occurred in more than 1 patient in the intent-to-treat population (N=46), regardless of drug attribution were thrombocytopenia (n=5); neutropenia (n=4); and anemia, fatigue, pneumonia, hyponatremia, DVT, and disease progression (n=2 pts each). Of these events, only fatigue (n=2) and neutropenia (n=2) were considered drug related by the investigator. CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with SGN-40 in DLBCL patients is well tolerated and resulted in objective responses consistent with the previous phase 1 experience. These data support further evaluation of SGN-40 in combination with chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma; 3 combination clinical trials are ongoing. Retrospective correlation of clinical outcome and a gene signature that includes baseline CD40 activation status are planned.

Abstract Introduction Antisense oligonucleotides are used to inhibit messenger RNA function and inhibit protein translation. Bcl-2 expression proteins have been implicated in mediating resistance to apoptotic cell death in Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM). Oblimersen sodium is a specific inhibitor of Bcl-2 expression and has shown activity in multiple myeloma and in Waldenstrom cell lines. The in vitro data led to the development of a phase I study for WM patients with relapsed or refractory disease. Materials and Methods Eligible patients had symptomatic WM who had failed prior cytotoxic chemotherapy. All patients had to have one of the following: a hemoglobin <11 g/dL, a platelet count <100,000/uL, bulky lymphadenopathy, or hyperviscosity syndrome. As a phase I study, the primary end point was toxicity assessment, but all patients were assessed for response, using monoclonal protein levels. Patients were enrolled and evaluated in cohorts of three. Drug was administered as a 24-hour continuous infusion for 7 days every 21 days, with intrapatient dose escalation each subsequent cycle beginning at 3 mg/kg/day up to a maximum of 7 mg/kg/day days 1–7 for a maximum of 8 cycles. Results To date 9 patients have been accrued, six at dose level one and three patients at dose level two. Data is available for the first six entered. Five women and 1 man have been accrued with a median age of 74.5 years, ranging from 58 to 81. Four patients had relapsed from prior therapy, 2 were refractory. Three had a history of transfusions. The median number of prior regimens was 4 (range 2–7). One patient had a dose-limiting toxicity on the first cycle of therapy, which was grade 3 fatigue and anorexia, and the dose for this patient was reduced. Two patients had non-hematologic grade 3 toxicity, possibly related to therapy. Five out of six patients on dose level one had grade 3 or greater hematologic toxicity. These toxicities occurred after cycle 1 was completed, during the toxicity observation period and were not considered dose limiting toxicities influencing dose escalation. Three patients required dose reductions in subsequent cycles. To date one patient has had a partial response with her serum M spike falling from 3.6 to 1.1 g/dL. Her quantitative IgM fell from 6,000 mg/dL to 1,000 mg/dL(figure). Conclusion Oblimersen was well tolerated at the first dose level in patients with WM. Hematologic toxicity is frequent in this cohort with heavily involved bone marrows when the dose was escalated during successive cycles. Dose reductions with subsequent cycles were frequently required. Evaluation of the maximum tolerated dose continues. Data on response for this dose level is promising, where efficacy will be fully evaluated in the phase II portion of this trial. Figure Figure

Abstract As part of a randomized, prospective clinical trial in large cell lymphoma, we conducted serial fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) at baseline, after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (interim PET [i-PET]), and at end of treatment (EoT) to identify biomarkers of response that are predictive of remission and survival. Scans were interpreted in a core laboratory by 2 imaging experts, using the visual Deauville 5-point scale (5-PS), and by calculating percent change in FDG uptake (change in standardized uptake value [ΔSUV]). Visual scores of 1 through 3 and ΔSUV ≥66% were prospectively defined as negative. Of 524 patients enrolled in the parent trial, 169 agreed to enroll in the PET substudy and 158 were eligible for final analysis. In this selected population, all had FDG-avid disease at baseline; by 5-PS, 55 (35%) remained positive on i-PET and 28 (18%) on EoT PET. Median ΔSUV on i-PET was 86.2%. With a median follow-up of 5 years, ΔSUV, as continuous variable, was associated with progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.00; P = .02) and overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P = .03). ΔSUV ≥66% was predictive of OS (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.85; P = .02) but not PFS (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.19-1.13; P = .09). Visual 5-PS on i-PET did not predict outcome. ΔSUV, but not visual analysis, on i-PET predicted OS in DLBCL, although the low number of events limited the statistical analysis. These data may help guide future clinical trials using PET response-adapted therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00118209.

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 (</≥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 (< 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.

Introduction Limited stage disease accounts for 30-40% of Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), with better overall survival than advanced stage disease, but with increased late relapses regardless of treatment strategy (Stephens 2016). Preferred treatment for these patients (pts) per NCCN guidelines is abbreviated R-CHOP followed by radiotherapy. Based on promising results of radioimmunotherapy consolidation in SWOG S0313 (Persky 2015), and of PET-directed experience by the BC Cancer Agency (Sehn 2011), we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) PET-directed study to tailor therapy after 3 cycles of R-CHOP, to improve outcomes and decrease toxicities. Methods Pts had non-bulky (< 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL. Mediastinal, HIV-associated, testicular, central nervous system, and indolent lymphoma were excluded. Pts received standard R-CHOP therapy and had an interim PET scan on day 15-18 of cycle 3, which was centrally reviewed in real time. Pts with negative PET scan (Deauville 1-3, iPET-neg) proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP. Pts with positive PET scan (Deauville 4-5, iPET-pos) initiated 36 Gy of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT), plus additional boost to FDG-avid area up to 9 Gy, within 5 weeks of 3rd cycle of R-CHOP. This was followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan (IFRT-Zevalin) 3-6 weeks after completing IFRT. Final PET scan was performed 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results The study completed accrual in June 2016. Safety, response, interim PET, and immunohistochemistry-based cell of origin (COO) and MYC/BCL2 analyses were presented previously (Persky 2017, Stephens 2017). Of 159 pts enrolled, 1 was upstaged by PET, and 26 pts were ineligible - due to incorrect histology (mostly concurrent indolent or follicular lymphoma grade 3B) (21), lack of diagnostic tissue submission for central pathology review (3), and bulky disease (2). In 132 eligible pts, median age was 62 years, 62% had stage I, 17% had B symptoms, 14% had elevated LDH, 43% had extranodal involvement, and 66% had exclusive involvement of the head and neck region. Stage modified IPI (smIPI, Miller 1998) was 0 in 27%, 1 in 42%, 2 in 28%, and 3 in 4% of the pts. COO by Lymph2Cx was assessable in 87 pts - 68% were GCB, 23% were ABC, and 9% were unclassifiable. Double protein expressers (MYC and BCL2, DPE) were 16%, while 4 (3%) pts had "double hit" lymphoma (DHL) - 2 with MYC/BCL2 and 2 with MYC/BCL6 rearrangements - none of which were DPE. Of 132 eligible pts, 128 had an interim PET scan centrally reviewed, of which 110 were iPET-neg. Only 18 were iPET-pos, 4 of them due to infection (Deauville X) which were treated as iPET-neg. Of 14 truly iPET-pos pts (11%), 2 refused radiation, and 12 pts received IFRT-Zevalin. Eight pts (67%) converted from PR to CR after IFRT-Zevalin and 4 (33%) had PR, for an overall CR of 92% and PR of 4% (with 4% unevaluable). With median follow up of 4.5 yrs (range 1.1 - 7.5 yrs), only 5 pts progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Of 5 progressors, 3 received R-CHOP x 4, 1 was iPET-pos but declined radiation, and 1 went off treatment after 1 cycle of R-CHOP. Eleven pts died from non-lymphoma causes, including 1 pt from secondary AML (iPET-neg arm), and 1 of lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed upon iPET. S1001 5-yr PFS estimate is 87% and OS estimate is 90% (figure 1), with iPET-pos and iPET-neg pts having similar outcomes - PFS 86% vs. 88%, OS 93% vs. 91%, respectively. Five-yr PFS by smIPI was 97% for smIPI of 0, 86% for 1-2, and 30% for 3. GCB had 5-yr PFS of 95%, vs. 70% for ABC and 47% for unclassifiable. DPE pts had 5-yr PFS of 70, vs. 89% for non-DPE pts. All 4 DHL pts maintain remission. Conclusions S1001 is the largest US study of limited stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with best NCTN results in this disease subset. Only 5 patients progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Our study confirms the distinct biology of limited stage DLBCL, with predominance of GCB origin (68%), and head and neck location (66%). Due to small number of lymphoma events, no strong conclusions about prognostic ability of smIPI, COO, DPE, or DHL, could be made. S1001 demonstrated that 89% of pts maintained excellent outcomes after R-CHOP x 4 with PET-directed therapy. Only 11% of pts were iPET-pos and required radiation, but they also had excellent outcomes. Together with the FLYER trial in younger pts (Poeschel 2018), this NCTN trial establishes R-CHOP x 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited stage disease for majority of the pts. Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy. Stephens:Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Swinnen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Barr:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Fisher:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Barclays: Honoraria; prIME: Honoraria. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibritumomab tiuxetan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

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 <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 <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 <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: Despite advances in chemotherapy, relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge and an unmet medical need. HL has a unique biology in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting HRS cells with the CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV), could overcome tumor cell resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (Nivo) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the patients treated with BV + Nivo (Arms D and E). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm D: Dose Level 1) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm E: Dose Level 2) in dose escalation with a 3+3 design and an expansion cohort (Arm F) of 9 patients. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional year (total 2 years of Nivo therapy). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/20/2016 10 patients (1 ineligible) have been treated with BV + Nivo. We report the data on the dose escalation population: 3 patients: Arm D, 7 patients: Arm E. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts (Arms D, E & F) (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Median age was 46; (range: 25-53). Six patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior therapies. Six patients had prior SCT (5 autologous, 1 allogeneic); 2patients had prior treatment with BV. Safety: Ten of 10 patients are evaluable for safety. Overall safety profiles show that the regimen of BV + Nivo was extremely well tolerated. One patient out of 7 in dose level 2 experienced a DLT (pneumonitis grade 3 with grade 3 dyspnea and hypoxia, and typhilits grade 3), this patient had received a prior SCT, and made a full recovery from his toxicities. Per protocol he discontinued further therapy. No other DLTs were noted for the remaining 9 patients. Common and relevant toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown in Table 1. There were no Grade 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs). The only additional grade 3 AEs noted were one each grade 3 rash and puritis. The most common grade 1-2 treatment related adverse events were: transaminitis (9), peripheral sensory neuropathy (6), and rash (3). Other AEs of interest included: diarrhea (3), blurry vision (2), and myalgias (2). One grade 1-2 infusion reaction was noted, this patient was able to receive subsequent therapy with pre-medication. Response: Eight of 10 patients are evaluable for response. One patient is not yet evaluable. For the 8 evaluable patients the overall response rate (ORR) for the combination of BV + Nivo was 100%, with a CR rate of 62.5% (5/8), with 95% CI of 0.25-0.91. One patient was ineligible for laboratory studies that were out of range at screening, however this patient continues on therapy, and also had a response. One of 5 CRs occurred at in dose level 1 (BV 1.2 mg/kg). Both patients who had been treated with prior BV achieved CRs. The progression free survival (PFS) to date is 100% with a median follow-up of 0.3 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of the checkpoint inhibitor Nivo and the ADC BV therapy was well tolerated with one DLT, and primarily grade 1 and 2 toxicities. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 20% of whom had had prior BV and 60% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 100% and CR rate of 62.5% suggests a deepening of response compared to either therapy alone. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + Nivo, and BV + Ipi + Nivo. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo cohort (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Disclosures Diefenbach: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Oncomed: Research Funding; This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Hong:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Advani:Stanford University: Employment; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.