Cheson, Bruce D.

8042 Background: Optimal consolidative therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. Avoidance of whole brain radiation may reduce risk of neurotoxicity. Non-radiation consolidative options include myeloablative chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) or non-myeloablative chemotherapy. Methods: This is a randomized phase 2, National Clinical Trials Network study of induction methotrexate (MTX) (8 g/m2days 1, 15), temozolomide (TMZ) (150-200 mg/m2 D7-11), and rituximab (RTX) (C1 D3, 10, 17, 24 and C2 D3, 10) in four 28-day cycles followed by one cycle of cytarabine (ARA-C) (2 g/m2 BID, D1, 2) (MTRA). Following induction, patients (pts) received consolidation with thiotepa (5 mg/kg BID, D -5, -4) plus carmustine (400 mg/m2, day -6) and ASCT (Arm A) or one cycle of ARA-C (2 g/m2 BID, D1-4) plus infusional etoposide (40 mg/kg over 96h) (Arm B). The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS), designed to compare consolidation regimens. This report describes the results of the 5 cycles of induction therapy. Results: 113 pts (median age 61 years, range 33-75) were randomized (Arm A: 57, Arm B: 56) across 27 centers. 108 eligible pts who received induction therapy were evaluated. 36 pts (33.3%) did not proceed to consolidation, mainly due to disease progression (17), pt withdrawal (8), or adverse events including death (6). Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 12 pts (11.1%) during induction. Dose modifications of MTX were required in 75% of pts and 63.3% of cycles, mainly due to renal adjustments. Dose delays of MTX were required in 52.8% of pts and 22.2% of cycles. Overall response rate (CR, CRu, PR) at the end of induction was 65.7% (95% CI, 56%, 74.6%). Conclusions: While MTRA is feasible and active a significant proportion of pts did not receive consolidation, supporting the need to develop more effective induction strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT01511562 .

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 .

8014 Background: HL is highly curable with > 90% of pts with limited and > 80% with advanced stage disease experiencing long-term disease-free survival. HL typically occurs in younger pts, yet 15-35% are > 60 yrs and experience a lower response rate, shorter survival, and greater toxicity. BV and checkpoint inhibitors have impressive activity in pts with relapsed and refractory HL. Thus, we initiated a phase II trial of BV-nivo in untreated pts with HL >60 yrs of age or considered unsuitable for standard ABVD therapy. Methods: Inclusion criteria: previously untreated pts with classical HL > 60 yrs or < 60 yrs but considered unsuitable for standard chemotherapy because of a cardiac ejection fraction of < 50%, diffusion capacity < 80%, or creatinine clearance > 30 but < 60 mL/min, or refused chemotherapy; ECOG PS 0-2, ANC >1500/mm3, platelets > 100,000/mm3, hemoglobin > 9 g/dl, bilirubin <1.5 x upper limits of normal (ULN), aspartate/alanine transaminases < 2.5 x ULN, amylase and/or lipase < 1.5 x ULN, and serum creatinine < 2.0 mg/dl. Pts received BV at 1.8 mg/kg (cap at 180 mg) and nivo 3 mg/kg every 21 days for 8 cycles. Response was assessed per the Lugano Classification. Results: The study accrued 46 pts between May 13, 2016-January 30, 2019. Median age of 71.5 yrs, 69.5% had ECOG PS 1 or 2; 64% stage III or IV; 39.1% with B symptoms; 4.3% were < 60 years. Median follow-up was 21.2 months (range 2.9, 38.5), and 35 pts (76.1%) completed all 8 cycles of therapy. At the interim analysis (1st 25 pts) ORR was 64% (52% mCR, 12% pMR) which was lower than the projected 80%. In all 46 pts, 45.7% achieved mCR and 15.2% mPR (ORR 60.9%); in evaluable pts, best ORR was 95% with 68% mCR. No clinical factors predicted response. Neither median duration of response nor median survival has been reached. Median PFS is 21.8 months (17.8, Not reached). 22 pts experienced 33 treatment delays, primarily due to BV. 22 pts experienced peripheral neuropathy (5 grade 3). Grade 4 toxicities included increased transaminases (n = 1), increased lipase and/or amylase (n = 2), pancreatitis (1). One pt died from cardiac arrest, possibly treatment-related. Conclusions: BV-nivo is active in untreated older HL pts with comorbidities. However, efficacy and response durability did not meet pre-specified criteria. Future trials based on these drugs, selecting pts most likely to benefit, may lead to a chemo-free approach for pts with HL. Clinical trial information: NCT02758717 .

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.

AbstractImmunochemotherapy followed by autologous transplant (ASCT) in CALGB/Alliance 59909 achieved a median progression‐free survival (PFS) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) of 5 years, but late recurrences occurred. We evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post‐transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM) to this regimen in CALGB/Alliance 50403, a randomized phase II trial. Following augmented‐dose R‐CHOP/ methotrexate, high‐dose cytarabine‐based stem cell mobilization, cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) autotransplant, and rituximab, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3‐week cycle for four cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV once weekly × 4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning day 90. The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from randomization for each arm. Proliferation signature, Ki67, and postinduction minimal residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were assessed. Of 151 patients enrolled; 118 (80%) underwent ASCT, and 102 (68%) were randomized. Both arms met the primary endpoint, with median PFS significantly greater than 4 years (P < .001). The 8‐year PFS estimates in the BC and BM arms were 54.1% (95% CI 40.9%‐71.5%) and 64.4% (95% 51.8%‐79.0%), respectively. Progression‐free survival was significantly longer for transplanted patients on 50403 compared with those on 59909. Both the PFS and OS were significantly better for those who were MRD‐negative post‐induction. The high risk proliferation signature was associated with adverse outcome. Both BM and BC were efficacious and tolerable, although toxicity was significant. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long‐term follow up suggests a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM post‐ transplant.

7519 Background: Acalabrutinib, a highly selective, potent, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has a 24% overall response rate (ORR) as a single agent in R/R DLBCL. Pem targets PD-1, an immune checkpoint that limits anticancer responses. Pem showed responses in patients (pts) with Richter transformation who failed ibrutinib and can augment acalabrutinib activity in vitro. This study assessed acalabrutinib + Pem in R/R DLBCL. Methods: Pts with DLBCL, ≥1 prior chemoimmunotherapy and no prior allogeneic transplant received acalabrutinib 100 mg PO BID until progressive disease (PD) + Pem 200 mg/kg IV Q3W up to 2 y. Germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs non-GCB subtype was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Primary endpoint was safety. Results: Sixty-one pts (30 GCB; 31 non-GCB) were accrued, with a median age (range) of 67 y (30-85) and a median of 3 (1-8) prior therapies; 1 pt had prior autologous transplant. The most common Gr 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (15%) and anemia (11%). Gr 5 AEs were respiratory failure (n=3), sepsis, septic shock and abdominal abscess (n=1 each). All Gr atrial fibrillation was 5% (n=3), and major hemorrhage (≥ Gr 3) was 11% (4 gastrointestinal, 1 pulmonary, 1 epistaxis, 1 hematuria). Gr 3/4 immune-mediated events were elevated alanine aminotransferase (n=4), pneumonitis (n=2) and colitis (n=1). The ORR was 26% (Table) and was similar in GCB (27%) and non-GCB (26%) tumors. The median time on study was 5.2 mo (0.4-30.4+). Acalabrutinib/Pem discontinuations were due to PD (62%/56%) and AEs (15%/26%). As of June 2018, 10 pts remain on study; 6 on active therapy and 7 without PD. Conclusions: Acalabrutinib + Pem was well tolerated, with meaningful activity and some exceptional responders (>24 mo) in these R/R DLBCL pts. Randomized trials of the combination vs single agent are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT02362035. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S0016 was a phase III randomized study that compared safety and efficacy of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab (CHOP-R) with CHOP followed by consolidation with (131) iodine-tositumomab radioimmunotherapy (CHOP-RIT) for previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. As reported previously, the study demonstrated excellent outcomes in both arms with 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 76% and 80% and 2-year overall-survival (OS) of 97% and 93% in the CHOP-R and CHOP-RIT arms, respectively. (Press. et al. JCO, 2012) We now report the long term outcome of patients who were treated on the S0016 study. Methods: Between 2001 and 2008, 531 previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma patients were randomized to receive either 6 cycles of CHOP every 3 weeks with 6 doses of rituximab (CHOP-R) or 6 cycles of CHOP every 3 weeks followed by RIT. Patients with advanced-stage disease (bulky stage II, III or IV) with any pathologic grade (1, 2 or 3) were eligible. Results: Patients on CHOP-R (n=264) and CHOP-RIT (n=267) arms had balanced baseline characteristics including age (median 54.5 vs. 53.4 years), presence of B symptoms (29% vs. 26%), pathologic grade 3 (8% vs. 9%), "high" FLIPI risk group (22% vs. 26%), stage IV disease (59% vs. 63%), elevated β2M (53% vs. 55%), bone marrow involvement (56% vs. 55%) and bulky disease (24% vs. 26%). Objective remissions were documented in 226 of 267 eligible patients treated with CHOP-R (85%) and in 226 of 264 patients with CHOP-RIT (86%). Complete remission (CR) rate was 40% in the CHOP-R and 45% in the CHOP-RIT arm. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event (AE) in both arms (48% vs. 51%). Rate of grade 3-5 AEs were not different except for thrombocytopenia which was more common in the CHOP-RIT group (18% vs. 2%). After a median follow-up of 9.6 years (range 0.1 - 14.4 years), the estimated 10-year PFS was 42% (95% CI: 35.6%, 48.5%) in the CHOP-R arm and 57% (95% CI: 50.5%, 63.2%) in the CHOP-RIT arm (p-value = 0.01). 51% of responders on the CHOP-R arm and 38% of responders on the CHOP-RIT arm have relapsed (p-value= 0.01). The estimated 2-year relapse-free survival was 76% for CHOP-R patients and 81% for CHOP-RIT patients (p-value=0.15). There were 48 deaths in the CHOP+R arm and 59 deaths in the CHOP-RIT arm with an estimated 10-year OS of 82% (95% CI: 76.3%, 86.4%) with CHOP-R and 77% (95% CI: 70.5%, 81.4%) with CHOP-RIT (p-value = 0.18). (Figure-1) During the follow-up, 41 patients (15.4%) in the CHOP-R arm and 37 patients (14%) in the CHOP-RIT arm developed secondary malignancies. MDS/AML were more common in the CHOP-RIT arm (11 patients; 4.2%) compared to CHOP-R arm (5 patients; 1.9%) with a relative risk of 2.2 (95% CI: 0.8-6.3) (P-value 0.12). Conclusion: With almost 10 years of follow-up, patients with FL treated on protocol S0016 show outstanding survival in both CHOP-R and CHOP-RIT arms, and represent the best published long-term outcomes to date in this disease. Indeed, almost half of patients enrolled still remain progression-free, confirming registry experiences. While CHOP-RIT provided significantly longer PFS and lower relapse rate compared to CHOP-R in our study, the OS rate was not different between 2 arms due in part to higher incidence of fatal MDS/AML in the CHOP-RIT group, emphasizing the importance of long-term follow-up, and calling into question the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in this setting. Given these outstanding outcomes, we believe chemoimmunotherapy should remain the standard induction approach for patients with high-risk FL until long-term follow-up of alternative approaches demonstrates superiority. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180821 and in part by GlaxoSmithKline Disclosures Shadman: Emergent: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Gopal:Paid Consultancy- Gilead, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Research funding- Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Merck, Teva, Takeda, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maloney:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Smith:Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; TGTX: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Portola: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Fisher:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee. Press:Roche / Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Given the availability of several active treatment (tx) options for CLL, providers frequently make tx recommendations based on their interpretation of objective data from consensus criteria and clinical trials. There are limited data describing patient (pt) experience, values, and insights when encountering multiple tx choices. The CLL Society, a pt-driven, physician-curated nonprofit organization focused on the unmet needs of the CLL community, sought to explore how CLL pts make tx decisions. Methods: A 64 question survey was distributed online and in paper to CLL pts from Oct-Dec 2017. The survey was developed by CLL experts. The research was IRB-approved. Chi square was used for statistical comparison; all other analyses are descriptive in nature. Results: 1147 pts from 48 states completed the survey. Median age was 65 (range 28-86), 46% male, 96% Caucasian. Who Influences Tx: Of the 79% of pts who have seen a CLL expert, defined as a provider focused on CLL at an academic/research center, 95% rated their provider as very/extremely influential. 83% of pts rated their own opinions as influential, and 59% rated the opinion of a general hematologist/oncologist (gen heme/onc), a provider who sees a variety of cancer types, as influential. Only 27% let their provider unilaterally decide on tx. Of these pts, 19% trusted their provider to select the best tx and 5% didn't have enough understanding to be involved in the decision. 64% were influenced by outside sources of information, such as family members, live CLL support groups, or online sources including pt experts and forums. Factors in Deciding Tx: Of the 67% pts surveyed who have been treated, 73% were offered > 1 tx choice by their provider. In deciding on a specific tx, 94% of respondents stated that it was very/extremely important to know there were tx options beyond their current regimen. The most important factors in selecting tx were response rate (91%), overall survival (88%), progression-free survival (86%), long-term side effects (82%), ability to achieve undetectable MRD (80%), cost/insurance coverage (66%), and location of tx (50%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 1). Tx was impacted by cost or insurance issues for 16% (n=104). Of these 104 pts, cost/insurance issues resulted in tx delay for 34 and change in tx plan for 24 pts. 16 pts reported that an appeal led to coverage and 16 pts received financial assistance. Pts' willingness to accept potentially curable but high-risk tx was heavily influenced by availability of alternate options. For example, 18% of pts would be willing to consider cytotoxic chemotherapy if alternate options were available vs. 72% if no options were available. Similar patterns were seen with CAR-T tx (28% vs. 79%) and bone marrow transplantation (BMT) (15% vs. 66%) with significant differences between subgroups (Table 2). 82% were willing to take a life-long tx for long-term control without potential for cure. Willingness to accept long-term tx was significantly higher in treated vs. untreated pts (84% vs. 77%, p=.006) and men vs. women (84% vs. 78%, p=.008). Clinical Trial Education: Of those treated by a gen heme/onc, 31% received no education on clinical trials. Only 15% reported good understanding of trial opportunities vs. 52% treated by a CLL expert (p<.001). 9% of pts treated by gen heme/onc were offered clinical trial participation vs. 47% treated by a CLL expert (p<0.001). Pts who declined or would have declined participation cited reasons including preference for "proven" tx (38%), distance from trial site (29%), fear (20%), frequent imaging (20%), overall lack of understanding about trials (15%), and lack of information (14%). Summary: Most respondents want to be and are involved in tx decisions. While providers are influential in decision making, CLL pts also rely on outside sources. Gender, age, and tx status influence which factors drive decision making. Pts select tx based on response rate, survival, side effects, and ability to achieve deep response and want a plan in place for sequencing tx. The majority are willing to consider long-term tx without cure. Few want chemotherapy, CAR-T, or BMT unless they have no other options. A significant opportunity for improvement in education on clinical trial opportunities was identified. This description of pt experience, values, and preferences enriches the informed consent process and may lead to more tailored and patient-centered care. Disclosures Kennard: AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Furman:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Pagel:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Davids:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Nabhan:Cardinal Health: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Acerta: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Siddiqi:Juno Therapeutics: Other: Steering committee. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Wierda:AbbVie, Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Choi:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Aggressive chemo-immunotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell autografting (ASCT) in CALGB (Alliance) 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL of 5 years (Damon et al JCO, 2009), but late recurrences occurred. Using the CALGB 59909 treatment backbone, we evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM)in a randomized phase II trial. Interim results of CALGB (Alliance) 50403 were previously presented (ASH 2015) demonstrating 5 yr PFS 70% and 69% for the BM and BC arms respectively. We now report final 8 year follow up results from this trial and compare outcomes to CALGB 59909, which differed from CALGB 50403 only by the absence of post-transplant bortezomib. Methods: The primary endpoint was PFS measured from randomization for each treatment arm. Induction therapy was with 2-3 cycles of augmented R-CHOP (2000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide) and methotrexate (300 mg/m2) followed by high-dose cytarabine/etoposide/rituximab(R)/filgrastim (EAR) stem cell mobilization and cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) ASCT. After 2 doses of post-transplant R, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/ m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for 4 cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly x4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning at approximately day 90. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was analyzed using patient-specific PCR probes for the bcl-1 / IgH junction or the IgH CDR3 region. Results: 151 patients were enrolled from 10/2006 - 6/2010 at 14 sites; 147 who received treatment are included in this analysis. Median age was 59 years (29-69); stage II (2.7%), III (11.6%), IV (85.0%); MIPI low (52.4%), intermediate (30.6%), high (17.0%); blastoid histology (12.9%); bone marrow involvement (81.0%); Ki67 was evaluated in 86 and was >30% in 17.4% of patients. 118 (80%) underwent ASCT and 102 (68%) were randomized. Most withdrawals (45) were for progression (10) or adverse events (AEs) (19) including 4 treatment-related deaths. Fifty-two patients were randomized to BM and 50 to BC. Following randomization, 34 (65%) completed BM and 33 (66%) completed BC. Withdrawal for AEs occurred in 14 (28%) of BC and 7 (13%) of BM patients (p = 0.09), most for cytopenias or peripheral neuropathy. With a median follow-up 7.8 years from randomization (8.3 from registration), the median PFS from randomization for the BM arm was not reached and was 8.9 years (95% CI 7.2 to not reached) for the BC arm. Both arms had median PFS significantly greater than the null hypothesis setting median PFS to 4 years (p < 0.001; 1-sided test of exponential parameter)The 8-year PFS estimates in the BM and BC arms were 77% (95% CI 66-90%) and 58% (95% CI 44-76%), respectively. Among all 147 patients treated on CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from time of registration was 43.6% (35.6-53.3%). PFS from registration was not significantly extended in CALGB 50403 compared with CALGB 59909 (log rank p=0.24), but using a landmark analysis from time of transplant, PFS was significantly extended in CALGB 50403 (log rank p=0.005)(fig 1). Baseline patient characteristics in the two studies were not significantly different. In CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from registration by MIPI was 52.0% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) in MIPI low risk, 37.5% (95% CI 25.3-55.4%) in intermediate risk, and 28.2% (95% CI 13.7-57.9%) in high-risk. Bone marrow MRD results were collected for 42 patients post-induction therapy; 8-year PFS estimates were 80.2% (95% CI 62.2-100%) (n=17) and 43.2% (95% CI 27.3-68.2%) (n=25) for MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients, respectively (p=0.009). Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT and either BC or BM was efficacious and tolerable, although BC was associated with more withdrawals for toxicity. PFS was not significantly different between BC and BM. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up continues to suggest a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM among patients undergoing transplant. This did not translate into a PFS benefit from time of study enrollment possibly due to the higher pre-transplant dropout rate in 50403. MRD-negativity following induction chemo-immunotherapy is highly associated with improved PFS and the role of ASCT in post-induction MRD-negative patients is currently under investigation in a randomized clinical trial. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 Disclosures Kaplan: Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Blum:Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board. Leonard:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy.

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