Citations

Background: Acute cellular rejection is a major determinant of mortality and retransplantation after heart transplantation. We sought to evaluate the prognostic implications of coronary microcirculatory dysfunction assessed by index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR) for the risk of acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation. Methods: The present study prospectively enrolled 154 heart transplant recipients who underwent scheduled coronary angiography and invasive coronary physiological assessment 1 month after transplantation. IMR is microcirculatory resistance under maximal hyperemia. By measuring hyperemic mean transit time using 3 injections (4 mL each) of room-temperature saline under maximal hyperemia, IMR was calculated as hyperemic distal coronary pressure×hyperemic mean transit time. The primary end point was biopsy-proven acute cellular rejection of grade ≥2R during 2 years of follow-up after transplantation and was compared by using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression according to IMR. The incremental prognostic value of IMR, in addition to the model with clinical factors, was evaluated by comparison of C-index, net reclassification index, and integrated discrimination index. Results: The mean age of recipients was 51.2±13.1 years (81.2% male), and the cumulative incidence of acute cellular rejection was 19.0% at 2 years. Patients with acute cellular rejection had significantly higher IMR values at 1 month than those without acute cellular rejection (23.1±8.6 versus 16.8±11.1, P =0.002). IMR was significantly associated with the risk of acute cellular rejection (per 5-U increase: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.04–1.34], P =0.011) and the optimal cutoff value of IMR to predict acute cellular rejection was 15. Patients with IMR≥15 showed significantly higher risk of acute cellular rejection than those with IMR<15 (34.4% versus 3.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 15.3 [95% CI 3.6–65.7], P <0.001). Addition of IMR to clinical variables showed significantly higher discriminant and reclassification ability for risk of acute cellular rejection (C-index 0.87 versus 0.74, P <0.001; net reclassification index 1.05, P <0.001; integrated discrimination index 0.20, P <0.001). Conclusions: Coronary microcirculatory dysfunction assessed by IMR measured early after heart transplantation showed significant association with the risk of acute cellular rejection. In addition to surveillance endomyocardial biopsy, early stratification using IMR could be a clinically useful tool to identify patients at higher risk of future acute cellular rejection after heart transplantation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02798731.

Abstract Background: Atezolizumab (atezo) and bevacizumab (bev) combination therapy has demonstrated robust clinical activity in patients with unresectable HCC who have not received prior systemic therapy (Lee et al., APPLE 2019; Cheng et al., ESMO Asia 2019). In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to identify tumor-based molecular biomarkers that may be associated with clinical response or resistance to atezo + bev. We also investigated how VEGF blockade with bev could potentiate PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition with atezo in pts with advanced HCC. Methods: Archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies taken prior to treatment were collected from HCC pts enrolled in the Phase 1b trial GO30140 (NCT02715531). Arm A (n = 104) was a single-arm evaluation of atezo + bev; Arm F (n = 119) was a randomized arm comparing atezo + bev with atezo. Whole-exome sequencing was carried out on these tumor tissues to determine tumor mutation burden (TMB). Gene expression in tumors was profiled by RNAseq analysis. The association between biomarker expression and clinical response (responders [R] vs. non-responders [NR]) or PFS was assessed by t-tests or Cox regression models, respectively. All p-values are descriptive. Results: In Arm A, 90/104 pts were biomarker evaluable. TMB was not associated with response to atezo + bev or PFS. In contrast, analysis of baseline tumor gene expression showed that pre-existing immunity appeared to be associated with clinical response and longer PFS, which included high expression of CD274 (PD-L1) (R vs. NR, p &lt; 2.1 × 10−5; PFS: HR = 0.42 [0.25-0.72]), and T effector signature (GZMB, PRF1, CXCL9) (R vs. NR, p &lt; 0.0004; PFS: HR = 0.46 [0.27-0.78]). Gene expression related to Notch pathway activation (i.e. high expression of HES1) appeared to be associated with lack of response to atezo + bev (p &lt; 0.039) and shorter PFS (HR = 2.1 [1.3-3.6]). In Arm F, 91/119 pts were biomarker evaluable. High expression of VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2; HR = 0.36 [0.16-0.81]), Treg (HR = 0.35 [0.15-0.82]), myeloid inflammation (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.95]), and TREM1/MDSC signatures (HR = 0.43 [0.19-0.94]) was associated with longer PFS in patients treated with atezo + bev than in those treated with atezo alone. Analysis of 12 serial biopsy pairs confirmed reduced levels of VEGFR2 and Treg signatures after atezo + bev treatment. Conclusion: We identified candidate biomarkers for predicting response to atezo + bev in HCC. Furthermore, the findings in Arm F are consistent with previous preclinical studies supporting a multi-faceted role of VEGF/VEGFR signaling in promoting immune suppression in addition to angiogenesis. Overall, the data presented here further support the mechanistic hypotheses on how anti-VEGF may combine with immune checkpoint blockade to increase its clinical benefit. As these results are exploratory, future study is needed to confirm these findings in a larger population. Citation Format: Andrew X. Zhu, Yinghui Guan, Alexander R. Abbas, Hartmut Koeppen, Shan Lu, Chih-Hung Hsu, Kyung-Hun Lee, Michael S. Lee, Aiwu Ruth He, Amit Mahipal, Beiying Ding, Jessica Spahn, Wendy Verret, Baek-Yeol Ryoo, Yulei Wang. Genomic correlates of clinical benefits from atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab vs. atezolizumab alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT044.

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 .

3531 Background: ctDNA has emerged as a promising biomarker for noninvasive monitoring of treatment response and disease progression in many tumor types. However, the clinical use of ctDNA in patients with HCC has not been established. Here, we evaluated longitudinal and personalized detection of ctDNA for monitoring the treatment response to atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) in patients with unresectable HCC not previously treated with systemic therapy. Methods: A subset (n = 48) of 104 patients with HCC who enrolled in Arm A of GO30140 (NCT02715531; Phase 1b) and received atezo + bev treatment were included in this study. These patients had 10 CR, 11 PR, 12 SD and 15 PD per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1. Serial plasma samples were collected at baseline (Cycle [C]1 Day [D]1), during treatment (C2D1, C4D1) and at disease progression. Somatic mutations in individual tumors were identified via whole exome sequencing of archival tumor tissues or fresh biopsies collected before treatment. Personalized ctDNA assays (Signatera 16-plex multiplex PCR next-generation sequencing assay) specific to each patient’s tumor mutational signatures were successfully designed for 47 of 48 patients. Results: At C1D1, a median of 25.7 ng of cell-free DNA was extracted from 2-mL plasma samples. ctDNA was detected in 45 of 47 patients (96%), with a median of 70.6 mean tumor molecules/mL of plasma (MTM/mL) and a median of 1.8% mean variant allele frequency (mean VAF) in plasma. Higher ctDNA levels detected at C1D1 appeared to be associated with increased tumor burden ( P < 0.03). Dynamic changes in ctDNA levels post-treatment were associated with response at C4D1. ctDNA status changed from positive at baseline to negative in 7 of 10 CR (70%), 3 of 11 PR (27%), 1 of 11 SD (9%) and 0 of 11 PD (0%) patients. Longer PFS was observed in patients whose ctDNA became undetectable post-treatment. The median PFS in patients with ctDNA present vs cleared at C4D1 was 6.5 months and not reached, respectively (HR, 12 [1.7-93], log-rank P < 0.00029). Conclusions: Our study showed that Signatera, a personalized and tumor-informed ctDNA assay, could be used as a sensitive method for detecting ctDNA in patients with unresectable HCC. More importantly, our results illustrate the promise of ctDNA as an emerging biomarker that may potentially help to monitor treatment responses and disease progression in patients with HCC.

IL-4/CCL24–mediated interaction with eosinophils maintains dermis-resident macrophages as replicative niches for Leishmania major .

Abstract Introduction: Genetic alterations at 9p24.1 resulting in overexpression of programmed death-1 (PD-1) ligands are near-universal in cHL (Roemer et al, J Clin Oncol 2016); cHL may thus be uniquely sensitive to PD-1 blockade. Nivolumab (nivo), an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was associated with an objective response rate (ORR) of 69% in relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL after auto-HCT and irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) in the phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018; NCT02181738). Whether some patient (pts) can derive very long clinical benefit, whether depth of response predicts long-term outcome, whether treatment (Tx) can be interrupted in complete remission (CR), and whether the safety profile of nivo in R/R cHL changes with prolonged Tx all remain unclear. We therefore present an updated analysis of CheckMate 205, focusing on long-term efficacy and safety. Methods: This international, single-arm, multi-cohort study enrolled pts aged ≥18 y with R/R cHL after auto-HCT. Pts were BV naïve (Cohort A), had prior BV failure after auto-HCT (Cohort B), or had received BV before and/or after auto-HCT (Cohort C). Pts received nivo 3 mg/kg every 2 wk until disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity. Pts in Cohort C discontinued nivo after 1 y in CR and could resume if they relapsed within 2 y of the last dose. Primary endpoint was ORR per independent radiology review committee (IRC); additional endpoints included duration of response (DOR) per IRC, progression-free survival (PFS) per IRC, overall survival (OS), and safety. Time to next Tx (TTNT: time from first dose to next systemic Tx or death) was an exploratory post-hoc analysis. Responses were assessed using International Working Group 2007 criteria. Results: In total, 243 pts were enrolled to Cohorts A (n=63), B (n=80), and C (n=100). Baseline characteristics have been previously described (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). At data cut-off, minimum follow-up was 31 mo and 49 pts (20%) were still on Tx; the most common reason for discontinuation was PD (35%). Median duration of Tx was 14 mo. ORR per IRC was 71% (65%, 71%, 75% in Cohorts A, B, C, respectively) with a best overall response (BOR) of CR in 21% (32%, 14%, 20% in Cohorts A, B, C, respectively). Among 51 pts who achieved CR, 20 had CR as the first response and 31 improved from partial remission (PR), mostly (n=28/31) within 1 year of first PR. Median time to response was 2 mo, and to CR was 4 mo. Within the first 6, 12, and 18 mo, 68%, 71%, and 71% of pts, respectively, achieved a response. Median DOR was 18 mo overall, and was 32 and 13 mo in pts with a BOR of CR and PR, respectively. Among responders, 64%, 44%, 31%, and 21% of pts had a DOR of at least 6, 12, 18, and 24 mo, respectively. Overall, 11 pts in Cohort C discontinued with persistent investigator-assessed CR; 2 reinitiated nivo due to PD. Median (95% CI) PFS per IRC among all pts was 15 (11-19) mo (Figure A), and was 17, 12 and 15 mo in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. Median OS was not reached in any cohort; 24-mo OS rates were 90%, 86%, and 86% in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively, and were similar among pts in CR, PR, or with stable disease (SD; Figure B). Median TTNT was 29, 27, and 20 mo in Cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. The most common Tx-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade (G) were fatigue (24%), diarrhea (16%), and rash (12%), each <1% G3-4. Tx-related infections were reported in 15% of pts, 2% G3-4. Tx-related infusion related reactions were reported in 34 pts (14%), <1% G3-4. The most commonly reported immune-mediated AE category was rash, which was G3-4 in 4 pts (2%). In total, 26 pts (11%) experienced an AE of any cause leading to discontinuation. There were no Tx-related deaths. Conclusions: With the longest phase 2-3 study follow-up of a checkpoint inhibitor in R/R cHL to date, nivo was associated with frequent and durable responses regardless of BV Tx history. More than 1 in 5 responders remained in response ≥2 years later. With extended follow-up, additional pts achieved CR in all cohorts. Pts with CR had longer PFS than pts with PR or SD. However, pts with both PR and SD had prolonged OS, unlike pts with PD, which may suggest that clinical benefit duration is not well predicted by conventional response criteria. Nivo continued to be well tolerated, with no new safety signals. Characteristics of long-term responders will be presented. Study support: BMS. Medical writing: A Gill, Caudex, funded by BMS Figure. Figure. Disclosures Armand: Infinity: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding. Younes:Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Collins:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kuruvilla:Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (len) is an immunomodulatory agent with single agent activity in relapsed and refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisone) is a common initial regimen. Herein, we report the completed phase II results of the combination of len-CHOEP. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had newly diagnosed PTCL, ANC ≥1000 cells/mm3, platelets ≥100 K/mm3, and adequate organ function. Based on phase I results [Lunning et al. T-cell Forum 2018] 10 mg of len was chosen for phase II. CHOEP was administered at standard doses with len given on days 1-10 of 21-day cycle for six planned cycles. Mandatory prophylaxis included aspirin (ASA) or alternative thromboprophylaxis and growth factor support per institutional guidelines with each cycle. A PET/CT after two cycles (PET-2) for interim response assessment was required per protocol. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) by PET/CT after 6 cycles (PET-6) of len-CHOEP utilizing the revised Cheson 2007 criteria with secondary endpoints to include toxicity, overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), 2-year PFS, and overall survival (OS). Pts who had CR or partial response (PR) at the end of therapy had the option of len maintenance (10 mg/day for 21 out of 28 days) for 1-year or consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) without len maintenance. Per protocol pts dosed at 10 mg in phase I (N=8) were included in the phase II analysis. Results: Forty pts with PTCL-NOS (23), ALK negative ALCL (5) and AITL (12) enrolled into the phase II portion. Median age was 62 years (range 24-79) and 21 were male. Thirty (75%) pts completed all 6 cycles. Reasons for discontinuing len-CHOEP early were toxicity (n=6) and progressive disease (PD; n=4). PET-2 was not done in 4/40 pts (n=2 each either not performed or PD). In an intent to treat (ITT) analysis the CR rate at the end of treatment was 48% (19/40; 95CI-32-64%) with an ORR of 68%. In pts who completed 6 cycles (n=30) the CR/ORR rate was 63%/87% respectively. Seven pts (18%) experienced primary treatment failure. Of the 19 pts in CR at end of initial therapy, 14 were in a CR at PET-2 assessment. Two pts in a PET-2 CR discontinued prior to cycle 6 due to toxicity and have not progressed. Five pts converted from a PR to CR after PET-2, but 7 of 13 PRs remained PRs. Responding pts (CR/PR; n=30) proceeded either to an ASCT (n=18), len maintenance (n=10) or neither (investigator/pts preference; n=2). At a median follow up of 13 months (range: 4-23 months), the 1-year estimated PFS and OS is 68% [95% CI--50-80%] and 89% [95%CI--73-96%] respectively. There were five grade (G) 5 events including PD (n=1), secondary malignancy (n=1; AML), sepsis (n=2), and cardiac arrest (n=1). Serious or recurrent adverse events (SAEs or AEs) of interest occurring during any cycle included 38% G 3-4 febrile neutropenia despite mandated GCSF use, 43% G 3-4 anemia, 43% G 3-4 thrombocytopenia (without report of G 3-4 bleeding or bruising despite ASA use), 3% G3-4 rash (all G 23%), and 8% G 3-4 diarrhea (all G 43%). Conclusions: The phase II portion of the study in an ITT population noted an unexpectedly modest 48% CR rate and a high discontinuation rate (15%) due to AEs or SAE. The utility of response at PET-2 and post initial therapy strategy (len maintenance vs ASCT) continue to be monitored for PFS and OS in this limited cohort. Improving frontline outcomes for pts with PTCL remains an unmet need. Disclosures Lunning: Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Horwitz:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role. Vose:Epizyme: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding. Mehta-Shah:Verastem: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Haverkos:Viracta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 2 CheckMate 205 study (NCT02181738) of nivolumab (nivo) has demonstrated high objective response rates (ORRs), durable efficacy, prolonged overall survival (OS), and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after failure of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) irrespective of prior brentuximab vedotin (BV) treatment (Armand et al, J Clin Oncol 2018). Atypical response patterns have been observed with checkpoint inhibitors, and clinical benefits may be experienced by pts who are treated beyond progression (TBP) as defined by conventional criteria (Cheson et al, Blood 2016; Younes et al, Ann Oncol 2017). Stable reductions in tumor burden without symptoms of active disease were seen in pts TBP in CheckMate 205, suggesting that pts might continue to derive clinical benefits from nivo beyond disease progression. As TBP was an option for some pts in CheckMate 205, we report here updated outcomes of those pts. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter study enrolled pts (age ≥18 y) with R/R cHL after failure of auto-HCT into 3 cohorts (A: BV naïve; B: BV after auto-HCT; C: BV before and/or after auto-HCT). Nivo was administered at 3 mg/kg IV every 2 wk until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (or after 1 year in complete response [CR] for cohort C). Response was assessed by 2007 International Working Group (IWG) criteria. A protocol amendment allowed pts with stable performance status and perceived clinical benefit to be TBP per investigator assessment. Tumor burden after initial progression was assessed; exploratory analyses included OS and time to next therapy (TTNT). Pts TBP were further categorized as PD-1 resistant (failure to achieve CR/partial response [PR] during initial treatment with nivo or CR/PR with subsequent progressive disease [PD] ≤90 d of response) and non-resistant pts (CR/PR followed by PD >90 d from response). Results: At data cutoff, 130 pts had PD, among whom 80 (62%) were TBP, and 50 (38%) were not (non-TBP). Demographics of pts TBP and non-TBP were similar to the overall study population, although more pts TBP had ECOG performance status of 0 at baseline (59% vs 36%) and stage IV disease at diagnosis (30% vs 22%), but fewer had B symptoms at baseline (23% vs 30%). In pts TBP vs non-TBP, the cause of initial progression was new lesions in 50 (63%) vs 23 (46%), increased total tumor burden in 17 (21%) vs 11 (22%), and non-target lesion progression in 19 (24%) vs 4 (8%) (pts could have multiple reasons for progression). ORR prior to progression was similar between TBP (54%) and non-TBP (64%) pts. At data cutoff, the median (range) doses of nivo given beyond progression was 11 (1-64) and median TBP duration was 5 (95% CI: 3, 7) mo. Nine (11%) pts TBP remained on treatment compared with 2 (4%) non-TBP. The most common reason for discontinuation was further disease progression in 55 (69%) and 28 (56%) pts TBP and non-TBP, respectively. The majority of pts TBP (37/67 evaluable pts) had stable or reduced target lesion tumor burden and most had sustained further reduction compared with the burden presented at the time of disease progression (Figure). There was no discernible difference in the response to TBP between PD-1 resistant vs non-resistant pts. Median OS for pts TBP was not reached; 1- and 2-yr OS (95% CI) was 94% (85, 97) and 87% (77, 93), respectively. Median TTNT was 20 (95% CI: 14, 24) mo for all pts TBP. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 50% of pts after progression vs 68% prior to progression. The most common TRAEs reported after progression were fatigue (8%) and increased lipase (6%). Treatment-related serious AEs after progression were reported in 2 (3%) pts: aspartate aminotransferase increase (n=1) and hypercalcemia (n=1). No deaths occurred in pts TBP. Conclusions: Among pts treated beyond investigator-assessed progression, most commonly due to development of new lesions, continued reductions in tumor burden were observed in a majority with further nivo treatment irrespective of prior PD-1 resistance status. Nivo continued to be well tolerated during TBP with no new safety signals. Pts who have stable performance status despite progression according to conventional criteria may derive continued clinical benefit from TBP. Future work will focus on identifying subsets of pts TBP who may benefit the most from continued nivo treatment. Study support: BMS. Disclosures Cohen: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; AbbVie: 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. Kuruvilla:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Younes:Abbvie: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding. Trněný:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board. Ramchandren:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Collins:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Boer:EISA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shipp:Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sy:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Armand:Otsuka: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding.

PURPOSE Nivolumab, an anti–programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated frequent and durable responses in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We report results from Cohort D of the CheckMate 205 trial, which assessed nivolumab monotherapy followed by nivolumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (N-AVD) for newly diagnosed cHL. METHODS Patients 18 years of age or older with untreated, advanced-stage (defined as III to IV and IIB with unfavorable risk factors) cHL were eligible for Cohort D of this multicenter, noncomparative, phase II trial. Patients received nivolumab monotherapy for four doses, followed by 12 doses of N-AVD; all doses were every 2 weeks, and nivolumab was administered at 240 mg intravenously. The primary end point was safety. Efficacy end points included objective response rate and modified progression-free survival, defined as time to disease progression/relapse, death, or next therapy. Chromosome 9p24.1 alterations and programmed death-ligand 1 expression were assessed in Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg cells in evaluable patients. RESULTS A total of 51 patients were enrolled and treated. At diagnosis, 49% of patients had an International Prognostic Score of 3 or greater. Overall, 59% experienced a grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event. Treatment-related febrile neutropenia was reported in 10% of patients. Endocrine immune-mediated adverse events were all grade 1 to 2 and did not require high-dose corticosteroids; all nonendocrine immune-mediated adverse events resolved (most commonly, rash; 5.9%). At the end of therapy, the objective response rate (95% CI) per independent radiology review committee was 84% (71% to 93%), with 67% (52% to 79%), achieving complete remission (five patients [10%] were nonevaluable and counted as nonresponders). With a minimum follow-up of 9.4 months, 9-month modified progression-free survival was 92%. Patients with higher-level Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg programmed death-ligand 1 expression had more favorable responses to N-AVD ( P = .041). CONCLUSION Nivolumab followed by N-AVD was associated with promising efficacy and safety profiles for newly diagnosed, advanced-stage cHL.