Kenkre, Vaishalee P.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass > 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p<0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p <0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p <0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p<0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p<0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p<0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p<0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p<0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p<0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p <0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p<0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p<0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: 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; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) provide recommendations for the management of adult patients with HL. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. Current management of classic HL involves initial treatment with chemotherapy alone or combined modality therapy followed by restaging with PET/CT to assess treatment response. Overall, the introduction of less toxic and more effective regimens has significantly advanced HL cure rates. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of classic HL.

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

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: 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; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction:The prognosis is poor for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who experience early relapse within 2 years of initial diagnosis and for those who are double refractory to both rituximab and chemotherapy (Casulo et al. J Clin Oncol 2015). Avadomide, a cereblon-modulating agent that promotes degradation of the hematopoietic transcription factors Aiolos and Ikaros, is being examined in this setting. Avadomide demonstrated promising clinical activity in combination with obinutuzumab or rituximab in relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and FL (Michot et al. Blood 2017; Ribrag et al. Blood 2017). Herein, we report FL subgroup analyses for the avadomide plus rituximab combination (Arm D) of the CC-122 DLBCL-001 study in both lenalidomide-naïve and treated patients. Methods: CC-122-DLBCL-001 (NCT02031419) is aphase Ib dose escalation/expansion study of avadomide, CC-223, and CC-292 given orally as doublets, and as triplets in combination with rituximab, as well as avadomide plus rituximab doublets, in patients with R/R DLBCL or FL after ≥1 prior line of therapy. In the dose expansion phase of the study, patients received avadomide once daily (QD) for 5 days/week (5/7 d), with a fixed dose of intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2/cycle (28-day cycle). The study endpoints were safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, preliminary efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] and complete response [CR]), and blood pharmacodynamic markers of avadomide. Results: As of May 1, 2018, 37 patients with FL were enrolled in the Arm D expansion group, including 29 in cohort 1 (no prior lenalidomide) and 8 in cohort 2 (≥2 cycles of prior lenalidomide). Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the two cohorts. In the total FL population, the median age was 61 years (range, 41-81 years), 54% were male, and 46% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. The median number of prior systemic anticancer regimens was 3 (range, 1-8). At disease diagnosis, three patients (8%) had bulky disease (≥7 cm in single dimension) and 7 (19%) had high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores. Twenty-three patients (62%) were refractory to rituximab and 11 (30%) were double-refractory to rituximab and an alkylating agent. As of the data cutoff, 27 patients (71%) were ongoing and no evaluable patients had experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. The most common (≥10%) any-grade adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (46%) and anemia (24%). Grade 3/4 AEs occurring in >1 patient were neutropenia (32%); fatigue, dizziness, and anemia (8% each); febrile neutropenia and diarrhea (5% each). Six patients (16%) experienced serious AEs related to study drugs. One patient died during the study (sepsis considered possibly related to study treatment). Avadomide dose reduction occurred in 7 (19%) patients. Among all FL patients, the ORR was 65% with 8 patients (22%) achieving a CR. Response rates appeared to be independent of prior lenalidomide treatment, with an ORR of 62% (CR=14%) in cohort 1 and an ORR of 75% (CR=50%) in cohort 2. The median follow up for progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months and 49% of patients had <6 months of PFS follow up. In the total FL population, 6-month and 12-month PFS rates were 83 (95% CI, 64-93) and 66 (37-84), respectively. Conclusions: Avadomide combined with rituximab was well tolerated. AEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of avadomide and toxicities associated with rituximab. Moreover, this combination showed promising efficacy in patients with R/R FL independent of prior treatment with lenalidomide. These findings support the role of avadomide plus an anti-CD20 antibody as a novel chemotherapy-free treatment for this difficult to treat patient population. Disclosures Nastoupil: TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ribrag:Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; pharmamar: Other: travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; argenX: Research Funding. Chavez:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humanigen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Corradini:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Lecturer; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board & Lecturer; Sandoz: Other: Advisory Board. Flinn:ArQule: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Sangha:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BI: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Uttamsingh:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hege:Mersana: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SITC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties: multiple; Arcus Biosicences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pourdehnad:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Key Points There was no difference in overall survival after allogeneic transplant between patients aged 55-64 years and patients ≥65 years. Age alone should not be a determinant for allogeneic transplant eligibility among older non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

BACKGROUNDEarly treatment failure (ETF) in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as relapse or progression within 2 years of frontline chemoimmunotherapy, is a newly recognized marker of poor survival and identifies a high‐risk group of patients with an expected 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate of approximately 50%. Transplantation is an established option for relapsed FL, but its efficacy in this specific ETF FL population has not been previously evaluated.METHODSThis study compared autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) with either matched sibling donor (MSD) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) as the first transplantation approach for patients with ETF FL (age ≥ 18 years) undergoing auto‐HCT or allo‐HCT between 2002 and 2014. The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM).RESULTSFour hundred forty FL patients had ETF (auto‐HCT, 240; MSD hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [HCT], 105; and MUD HCT, 95). With a median follow‐up of 69 to 73 months, the adjusted probability of 5‐year OS was significantly higher after auto‐HCT (70%) or MSD HCT (73%) versus MUD HCT (49%; P = .0008). The 5‐year adjusted probability of NRM was significantly lower for auto‐HCT (5%) versus MSD (17%) or MUD HCT (33%; P < .0001). The 5‐year adjusted probability of disease relapse was lower with MSD (31%) or MUD HCT (23%) versus auto‐HCT (58%; P < .0001).CONCLUSIONSPatients with high‐risk FL, as defined by ETF, undergoing auto‐HCT for FL have low NRM and a promising 5‐year OS rate (70%). MSD HCT has lower relapse rates than auto‐HCT but similar OS. Cancer 2018;124:2541‐51. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical studies suggest that SNPs in the Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) genes influence response to rituximab, but the clinical relevance of this is uncertain. Experimental Design: We prospectively obtained specimens for genotyping in the rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial (RESORT) study, in which 408 previously untreated, low tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL) patients were treated with single agent rituximab. Patients received rituximab in 4 weekly doses and responders were randomized to rituximab re-treatment (RR) upon progression versus maintenance rituximab (MR). SNP genotyping was performed in 321 consenting patients. Results: Response rates to initial therapy and response duration were correlated with the FCGR3A SNP at position 158 (rs396991) and the FCGR2A SNP at position 131 (rs1801274). The response rate to initial rituximab was 71%. No FCGR genotypes or grouping of genotypes were predictive of initial response. A total of 289 patients were randomized to RR (n = 143) or to MR (n = 146). With a median follow-up of 5.5 years, the 3-year response duration in the RR arm and the MR arm was 50% and 78%, respectively. Genotyping was available in 235 of 289 randomized patients. In patients receiving RR (n = 115) or MR (n = 120), response duration was not associated with any FCGR genotypes or genotype combinations. Conclusions: Based on this analysis of treatment-naïve, low tumor burden FL, we conclude that the FCGR3A and FCGR2A SNPs do not confer differential responsiveness to rituximab. Clin Cancer Res; 22(4); 821–6. ©2015 AACR. See related commentary by Cartron et al., p. 787