Leonard, John P.

Abstract Abstract 3701 Background: Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) is an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL) characterized by production of a monoclonal IgM paraprotein and variable CD20 expression due to the downregulation of CD20 as B cells differentiate into plasma cells. Rituximab monotherapy (R) achieves an overall response rate (ORR) of 25–50% in therapy naïve and relapsed WM and is associated with IgM flares in 25–75% of patients (pts) that potentially lead to hyperviscosity due to a rapid rise in IgM. Ofatumumab (OFA) is a fully human monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody approved for the treatment of fludarabine and alemtuzumab-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and has demonstrated activity in indolent B-NHL. Since OFA is active in CLL, with its low CD20 expression, we initiated a phase II single-arm trial of OFA in pts with WM. We report primary endpoint data from this study. Methods: Pts (age ≥ 18 years) with WM requiring therapy by 2nd International Workshop on WM (IWWM) criteria were eligible. Cycle 1 (C1) of therapy consisted of OFA 300 mg week 1 and 1000 mg weeks 2–4 (Treatment Group A [TGA]) or OFA 300 mg week 1 and 2000 mg weeks 2–5 (TGB). Premedication included acetaminophen and antihistamine (all infusions) and glucocorticoid (infusions 1 and 2). Pts with grade 3–4 infusion-related adverse events (AEs) during weeks 1 and 2 also received glucocorticoid during weeks 3–5. Pts with stable disease (SD) or a minor response (MR) at week 16 of cycle 1 were eligible to receive a re-dosing cycle (C2) consisting of OFA 300 mg week 1 and 2000 mg weeks 2–5. The primary endpoint was ORR assessed by 3rd IWWM criteria. Toxicity was assessed according to NCI-CTCAE, v 3.0. Results: Thirty-seven pts were enrolled between March 2009 and February 2011. Median age was 63 years (range 43–85); 22 pts were male. Median IgM level was 3.11 g/dL (range 0.81–8.64); median hemoglobin (hgb) was 9.8 g/dL (range 5.3–13.2). Nine pts were treatment naïve; 28 pts had received a median of 3 prior therapies (range 1–5) including R (25 pts) and purine analog (14 pts). The first 15 pts were enrolled in TGA and the next 22 pts in TGB; pt characteristics were similar in both groups. Thirty-four pts completed C1; 1 pt withdrew after 1 dose and 2 pts received only 3 doses due to serious AEs (SAEs). Eleven pts achieved partial response (PR) and 7 achieved MR after C1 (ORR=49%; 95% CI [32%, 66%]). Twelve pts received C2, after which 4 pts improved their response (1 MR to PR, 1 SD to PR, 2 SD to MR) and 1 nonevaluable pt attained MR. After C1 and C2, the ORR was 59% (13 PR, 9 MR; 95% CI [42%, 75%]). Responses were seen in 67% (6/9) of therapy naïve pts, 57% (16/28) of relapsed pts, 52% (13/25) of pts who had prior R, 75% (9/12) of R-naïve pts, 64% (16/25) of pts with IgM < 4 g/dL and 50% (6/12) of pts with IgM ≥ 4 g/dL. ORR was 47% (7/15) in TGA and 68% (15/22) in TGB. ORR in TGA was negatively affected by prior R exposure and IgM ≥ 4 g/dL, whereas ORR in TGB was not affected by prior therapy, prior R or IgM level. Fifteen of 26 (58%) pts with hgb < 11.0 g/dL experienced ≥ 3.0 g/dL increase in hgb (range 3.0–7.1). Infusion-related events occurred with dose 1 in 30 (81%) pts and with dose 2 in 21 (57%) pts; all infusion events were grade 1–2 except 4 grade 3 events (1 rash, 1 chest pain, 1 chest discomfort, 1 back pain). Fifteen pts developed 22 infections including 8 upper respiratory tract, 4 urinary tract (UTI) and 4 sinus infections; all infections were grade 1–2 except 1 grade 3 UTI. One pt developed grade 3 febrile neutropenia. In total, there were 14 grade 3–4 AEs (all grade 3). Five pts developed 8 SAEs possibly related to OFA. One pt withdrew due to grade 3 hemolytic anemia. Two pts with baseline IgM of 6.63 and 4.75 g/dL required plasmapheresis for grade 3 renal insufficiency and hyperviscosity symptoms, respectively, with resolution of symptoms and were able to complete C1. Two pts developed IgM flare, defined as > 25% rise in IgM followed by subsequent MR or PR. Conclusions: OFA is clinically active in pts with WM, with an acceptable toxicity profile and a lower incidence (5%) of IgM flare. The ORR to OFA was 59% (TGA 47%, TGB 68%) including a 50% ORR (TGA 17%, TGB 83%) in pts with IgM ≥ 4.0 g/dL. Pts' anemia responded to OFA with 58% of pts with baseline hgb < 11.0 g/dL experiencing ≥ 3.0 g/dL increase in hgb. TGB achieved ORR > 60% in all pt groups regardless of prior therapy or baseline IgM level. A higher dose of OFA appeared to be more effective in pts previously exposed to R or with baseline IgM ≥ 4.0 g/dL. Further study of OFA in WM is warranted. Disclosures: Furman: Genentech: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: • Ofatumumab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of fludarabine- and alemtuzumab-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and is currently under development for the treatment of B-cell malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia and follicular lymphoma), as well as autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis). Eradat:Millennium: Speakers Bureau; Genentech, A Roche Company: Speakers Bureau. DiRienzo:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Leonard:GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy. Advani:GSK: Research Funding. Switzky:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Liao:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Shah:GSK: Employment. Lisby:Genmab A/S: Employment. Lin:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment.

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.

Abstract Background: We recently clarified the use of consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first remission consolidation therapy for high grade diffuse aggressive T and B non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)in patients with high-intermediate (HI) or High (H) age adjusted IPI disease (Stiff et al, NEJM 369:1681). After receiving CHOP or R-CHOP for 5 cycles responding patients were randomized to either 3 more induction cycles or 1 cycle followed by an ASCT using either a BCNU or TBI based preparative regimen. We found a PFS but not OS advantage for those randomized to transplant and no differential treatment effect for those with T-NHL patients as compared to B-NHL in the initial analysis of this study. In light of Phase II data suggesting a value of early ASCT for T-NHL, a lack of randomized ASCT trials for T-NHL and the inferior prognosis for T-NHL as compared to B cell disease, we further evaluated this sub group, since a post hoc analysis of the entire trial did find a survival advantage for those with H IPI disease. This then provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the role of ASCT consolidation for T-cell NHL in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. Method: Among the 370 eligible B-NHL and T-NHL patients with HI/H IPI disease treated on this trial, 40 had a T-NHL phenotype and were the subject of this analysis. Individual patient files were re-reviewed and those randomized after the first 5 cycles of CHOP were further analyzed for stage, IPI group, histology (centrally reviewed), and response to induction and consolidation and updated survival outcome. Results: Of the 40 T-NHL patients enrolled on study, 28 (70%) were randomized after induction therapy, a similar ratio to the entire trial (68%). Twelve were not randomized; 1 was ineligible for study, and of the eligible 11, 9 were HI IPI and 8 had peripheral T cell (PTCL-NOS). These 11 were not randomized due to patient choice in 2, and all of the remaining 9 pts progressed early: 2 after C1; 3 after C3, 1 after C4, and 3 after C5. For the 28 randomized, their median age was 50 and 19 were males. Of the group, 21/28 had B symptoms at diagnosis, 14 had stage IV disease, and 18 and 10 were in the HI and H IPI groups respectively. Histologies included 11 with PTCL-NOS, 7 angioimmunoblastic and 10 anaplastic large cell NHL. At randomization 13 were to continue CHOP and 15, ASCT. Of the 15 assigned to ASCT, 3 did not undergo transplant (2-refusals, 1- unable to mobilize); 7 received the BCNU-etoposide-cyclophosphamide and 5 the TBI-etoposide-cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. The 5 year estimates of PFS and OS for the randomized ASCT vs CHOP only groups (intent to treat) were 40% vs 38% (p=0.56) and 40% vs 45% (p=0.98) respectively. We found no difference in outcome based on IPI group, histology or stage of disease. Interestingly, only 1/7 patients who received BCV as the ASCT preparative regimen are long term survivors vs 4/5 receiving the TBI-based regimen. Conclusions: We did not observe a PFS/OS advantage for those with high-risk T-NHL in first remission randomized to ASCT following CHOP induction vs CHOP alone in this retrospective analysis. In addition, the 30% early drop out rate before randomization due primarily to early progression strongly suggests that more optimal induction regimens need to be developed for this disease. While the numbers are small the finding that TBI based preparative regimens might be associated with a higher PFS is of interest and deserves further study. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888 and CA180819; Bristol-Myers Squibb. Contributions of Dr. Raymond R Tubbs, deceased, are gratefully acknowledged. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Porcu: miRagen: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; celgene: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; Millenium: Other: investigator in a clinical trial; Innate Pharma: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial. Winter:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medivation: Other: Provision of investigational agent for clinical trial; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. 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. Smith:Juno: Consultancy; TGTX: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. 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.. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Abstract Abstract 1618 Introduction: Primary breast lymphoma is a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), representing about 1% of breast tumors and 2% of extranodal NHL. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common primary subtype presenting in the breast. Due to the low incidence of primary breast DLBCL, outcome data is limited. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the natural history of primary breast DLBCL in the pre and post rituximab eras, with specific emphasis on the incidence of local, systemic and central nervous system (CNS) relapses. Methods: Data was retrospectively collected on patients with primary breast DLBCL from seven USA academic medical centers. Institutional review board approval was obtained at each participating site. Patients were identified through institutional databases and tumor registries at each site. Charts were reviewed to obtain demographic and clinical variables including treatment history and dates of relapse and death when applicable. Only patients with stage I/II disease (involvement of breast and localized lymph nodes) were included. All histologies apart from primary DLBCL were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the diagnosis date to the date of death or last follow-up. Time to Progression (TTP) was calculated from diagnosis data until the date of pathological evidence of recurrence or death. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Between 1984 and 2012, 75 patients were identified who met the eligibility criteria. The median age was 62 years (range 17–87); 81% presented with a palpable mass; 12% had their disease detected incidentally by mammography; 4% presented with B-symptoms; 59% had right breast involvement; 67% had stage I and 33% had stage II disease. The stage-adjusted international prognostic index (IPI) score was 0 in 28% of patients, 1 in 41%, 2, in 25%, 3 in 4% and 4 in 1%. 91% of patients were treated with chemotherapy; 31% of these were treated in the pre-rituximab era and 69% received rituximab. Radiation therapy (RT) was utilized in 68% of patients and was the only treatment modality in 8% of those receiving RT. 8% of patients received CNS prophylaxis with intrathecal chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 4.5 years (range 0.6 – 20.6 years), the Kaplan-Meier estimated median TTP was 10.4 years (95% CI 6.2 – 14.6 years) and the median OS was 14.6 years (95% CI 6.5 – 22.6 years). The 5-year TTP and 5-year OS were 65% (95% CI 53–77%) and 75% (95% CI 64–86%) respectively. Among the patients who relapsed, 67% occurred within the first 2 years. A total of 7 relapses in the breast were observed, none in patients treated with combination of chemotherapy and RT. In univariate analysis, rituximab exposure was not associated with any difference in TTP or OS. The stage-adjusted IPI was associated with OS; the 5-year OS was 88% (95% CI 79–98%) in patients with a score of 0–1 versus 48% (95% CI 25–71%) in those with a score of 2–4 (log rank p < 0.001). The very limited-disease group with a stage-adjusted IPI of 0 had a 5-year OS of 94% (95% CI 83–100%) compared to all others who had a 5-year OS of 67% (95% CI 52–81%; log rank p = 0.001). There was no difference in TTP and OS in patients with solitary versus multiple breast masses or between patients with tumors less than versus more than 7cm. Patients receiving RT in addition to chemotherapy had a longer TTP than those who did not (log rank p = 0.03), but RT was not associated with an improved OS. Patients who relapsed and underwent stem cell transplant (SCT) had similar OS to those who never relapsed. Ten patients (13%) had CNS relapse (3 with leptomeningeal disease, 5 with brain parenchymal disease and 2 with both). All CNS relapses occurred within the first 2.8 years from the time of diagnosis. There was no difference in the rate of CNS relapse in the patients who received IT prophylaxis versus those who did not. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, the largest published to date, primary breast DLBCL appears to have a worse prognosis than early-stage DLBCL in nodal or other extranodal sites. RT was associated with improved TTP. Patients who relapsed were successfully salvaged with SCT, and had similar survival times to those who never relapsed. A high CNS relapse rate (∼1 in 8 patients, including parenchymal disease in 70%) was observed. The small numbers preclude definitive conclusions on the value of intrathecal prophylaxis or the utility of rituximab. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Contemporary approaches to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) incorporate chemo-immunotherapy, biologic combinations, and immune modulating agents; toxicities in elderly pts (³65 years) receiving these therapies are not well studied. Further, clinical and biologic factors predicting these toxicities in pts receiving biologic therapy remain undefined. Methods: We reviewed data on NHL and/or CLL pts treated prospectively on 14 studies by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2004-2014 (Table 1). Toxicity was assessed per the NCI CTCAE at the time of trial enrollment, and the probabilities of experiencing grade 3 and grade 4 hematologic (hem) and non-hematologic (non-hem) toxicities were modeled as a function of age (³65 years vs. < 65), time on study, treatment (biologics only vs. biologic + chemotherapy), gender, race, LDH, performance status (PS), stage, and an age-by-treatment interaction using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1199 pts (409 age ³ 65; 790 age < 65; 736=CLL and 463=NHL) were included. Among these patients, 493 received only biologic therapy (166 age ³ 65; 327 age < 65; 104 CLL; 389 NHL), and 706 received biologic + chemotherapy (243 age ³ 65; 463 age < 65; 632 CLL; 74 NHL). Among CLL pts (259 pts ³ 65), the effect of age on the probability of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity differed by treatment type (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.047). Specifically, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (age ³ 65 vs. < 65) for pts receiving only biologic therapy was 3.075 (95% CI: 1,15-8.25), and that for pts receiving biologic + chemotherapy was 1.044 (95% CI: 0.69 - 1.57). Similar results were seen in CLL pts for grade 4 heme toxicities (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.033; biologic OR 6.937, 95% CI: 1.76-27.35; biologic + chemo OR 1.484, 95% CI: 1.04-2.13). No such interactions were found in CLL pts for grade 3 and 4 non-hem toxicities; however, older pts had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 non-hem toxicity than younger pts (adjusted OR 1.40; p = 0.047; 95% CI: 1.004-1.96). No age group differences were found in CLL pts for grade 4 non-hem toxicity. Similar analyses were performed for NHL pts (150 pts ³ 65), but no significant age group differences were found. Among CLL pts, women had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity than men (OR 2.01; p = 0.0007); no difference in grade 3 non-hem or any grade 4 toxicity was noted. Non-Caucasian CLL pts had higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 non-hem toxicity than Caucasians (OR 2.892; p = 0.0029), but no other toxicity differences were found. Worse PS was associated with increased toxicities (OR 1.871; p = 0.0009: grade 3 heme; OR 1.647; p = 0.0025: grade 3 non-hem; OR 1.410; p = 0.0448: grade 4 heme, and OR 1.931; p = 0.0252: grade 4 non-hem). CLL pts with advanced stage disease had higher odds of experiencing a heme toxicity (grade 3: OR 1.95; p = 0.0007, grade 4: OR 1.451; p = 0.0329), but no stage associations were found for non-hem toxicities. Among NHL pts, men had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 hematologic toxicity than women (OR 4.351; p = 0.0169), but no other toxicity differences were found. An increase in LDH was associated with significantly higher odds of experiencing grade 3 non-hem and grade 4 heme toxicities (grade 3 non-heme: OR 1.633; p = 0.021, grade 4 heme: OR 2.039, p = 0.0182), but no such effect was found for grade 3 heme or grade 4 non-hem. Worse PS was associated with higher odds of experiencing grade 3 toxicities (heme: OR 2.025; p = 0.0344, non-hem: OR 2.458; p = 0.0013), but no such differences were found for grade 4 toxicities. No significant stage or race effects were found in NHL patients. Conclusion: In pts ³65 years who have CLL or NHL, we identified several clinical and disease-related factors as potential predictors of developing grade 3 and/or 4 heme and non-hem toxicities (Table 2). A prognostic model is being constructed to predict toxicities in these under-studied pts to guide management and monitoring. Further, the impact of these toxicities on outcomes is being analyzed and will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Hurria: Celgene: Other: Research; Optum Health Care SOlutions: Consultancy, Other: Conference panel, research; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Carevive: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Research; GTx, Inc: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nabhan:Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.

AbstractThe investigators present results on the long-term value and limitations of early interim positron emission tomography (PET) scanning in advanced Hodgkin lymphoma.

Background:Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) has established efficacy and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent NHL. This includes patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who are generally treated in a similar manner to follicular lymphoma (FL).Aims:Primary results for the AUGMENT study in R/R FL grade 1–3a and MZL showed significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) for R2 over R/placebo in the overall population and in the subgroup analyses, with the exception of the MZL subgroup. Given the small sample size for MZL patients, post hoc analyses of baseline characteristics and univariate/multivariate analyses of PFS were conducted to examine possible explanations for these results.Methods:The phase III AUGMENT study randomized patients 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/day (d), d1–21/28 X12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2–5) or rituximab‐placebo (R/placebo; same dosing schedule). PFS by 2007 IWG (without PET) was the primary endpoint. Post hoc Cox regression models were used for univariate analysis of one risk factor and multivariate analyses including treatment arm and significant risk factors (P < 0.05) from the univariate analyses.Results:A total of 63/358 (18%) MZL patients were part of the overall study population, including n = 14/16 MALT, n = 9/6 splenic, and n = 8/10 nodal MZL subtypes for respective R2 and R/placebo arms. Numerical differences between treatment arms for baseline demographics and disease characteristics for MZL patients favoring the R/placebo arm were: fewer R2 patients had an ECOG score of 0 (55% R2 vs 72% R/placebo), and more R2 (vs R/placebo) patients were older (≥65 y: 68% vs 59%; ≥70 y: 42% vs 38%), were refractory to the last prior regimen (13% vs 3%), had Ann Arbor stage IV disease at enrollment (65% vs 41%), high‐risk MALT‐IPI score (50% vs 19%), elevated LDH (29% vs 19%), B symptoms (13% vs 3%), and high tumor burden per GELF criteria (65% vs 56%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs for MZL patients receiving R2 vs R/placebo, respectively, were neutropenia (47% vs 16%), pneumonia (3% vs 13%), and leukopenia (10% vs 0). A total of 5 deaths occurred in the R2 arm (most associated with progression of disease; 2 deaths occurred early at 3 and 13 days after randomization [one prior to receiving R2 and one 2 days after treatment initiation]) and 2 in the R/placebo arm. Despite worse prognostic features, best response was improved with R2 (vs R/placebo) with ORR = 65% vs 44% (P = 0.13) and CR = 29% vs 13% (P = 0.13), although neither were statistically significant. Improved response rates did not translate into a survival advantage for R2. Median PFS for MZL patients was 20.2 mo R2 vs 25.2 mo R/placebo (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47–2.13; P = 1.0). Univariate analyses showed that several baseline factors were prognostic for MZL patients (P < 0.05): Ann Arbor stage IV, elevated LDH, and unfit for chemotherapy (Table). Multivariate analyses adjusting for the imbalance in these 3 significant prognostic factors showed an adjusted PFS HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20–1.28) favoring the R2 arm, similar to the PFS HR in the overall population (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34–0.63). The univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors impacted PFS results for MZL patients.Summary/Conclusion:Overall, these findings suggest that the PFS results in MZL patients were negatively impacted by the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors and more aggressive disease in the R2 over the R/placebo arm.image