Citations

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system (CNS) relapse (CNSr) in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) occurs uncommonly (estimated incidence 5%) but carries a high morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified risk factors for CNSr such as high tumor burden and extranodal (EN) disease. However, most focus on B-cell NHL with minimal data in T-cell lymphomas (TCL), which are significantly less common and more heterogenous. The few small series of CNSr in TCL report a median overall survival (OS) less than 3 months (mo) with incidence ranging from 2.6-9%. To better define CNSr in TCL, we performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of TCL patients with CNSr and herein describe clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment of CNSr. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using data from 9 US academic centers with IRB approval at individual sites. We included adult patients diagnosed with a mature T-cell neoplasm as per the 2016 WHO classification between 1/1/2009-1/1/2019, who were found to have CNSr at any time after initial diagnosis, and collected patient, disease, and treatment characteristics at time of initial diagnosis as well as at CNSr. Patients with a diagnosis of a precursor T-cell malignancy or with CNS disease identified at initial TCL diagnosis (TCLd) and/or prior to first-line systemic treatment were excluded. Results In this analysis, we report the outcomes of 75 patients (male n=45, female n=30). At TCLd, the median age was 59 years (range 20-81), and 61% of patients (n=46) had an IPI score of at least 3, 92% (n=69) had EN involvement with 37% (n=28) involving at least 2 EN sites, and 59% (n=44) had BM involvement. The most common pathologic diagnoses were peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL, NOS; 24%, n=18), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 17%, n=13), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL; 17%, n=13), and mycosis fungoides (MF; 12%, n=9) (Figure 1A). First-line systemic therapy for TCL included anthracyclines for 72% (n=54). Autologous and allogenic transplants were performed prior to CNSr in 12% (n=9) and 8% (n=6) of patients, respectively. Prior to CNSr, 48% (n=36) had non-CNS relapse. Some form of CNS prophylaxis was used during initial systemic lymphoma therapy in 24% of patients (n=18), predominantly intrathecal methotrexate (IT MTX; n=16). Median time from TCLd to CNSr was 8.5mo, though this was significantly longer in MF (46.8mo [range 17.5-187.7]) versus PTCL, NOS (7.6mo [range 1.1-58.4], P=0.0002), AITL (21.2mo [range 2.0-61.6, P=0.008), and ATLL (7.3mo [range 0.7-46.4], P=0.0005) (Figure 1B). CNSr developed within 6mo of TCLd in 31% of patients (n=23) and within 12mo in 57% (n=43). Symptoms related to CNSr occurred in 71% of patients (n=53). CNSr patterns were 61% leptomeningeal (n=46), 21% parenchymal (n=16), and 17% both (n=13) with no significant survival difference between leptomeningeal or parenchymal disease alone (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70, P=0.28). Concomitant systemic relapse was observed in 59% of patients (n=44). The most common CNS-directed therapy for CNSr was IT MTX (56%; n=42), though multiple different IT and/or systemic regimens were used. Patients received a median of 1 line of CNS-directed treatment (range 0-5). The overall response rate to initial CNS directed treatment was 32% (16% CR, 16% PR). Median follow up after CNSr was 40.7mo. At last follow up, 83% had died (n=62). Median OS after CNSr was 4.6mo (range 0.1-68.7) (Figure 1C). Those with ATLL had the shortest median OS after CNSr (2.7mo) versus 6.3mo in MF (HR 3.69, 95% CI 1.44-9.42, P=0.005), 6.5mo in AITL (HR 2.16, 95% CI 0.92-5.06, P=0.054), and 4.8mo in PTCL, NOS (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.70-3.19, P=0.27) (Figure 1D). The most common cause of death was progressive lymphoma (77%; n=48). Conclusions This is to our knowledge the largest series of CNSr in TCL to date. Most CNSr occurred within 12mo, though CNSr occurred later in patients with MF. Although the prognosis after CNSr was generally poor, we found that median OS in CNSr was longer than previously reported, perhaps reflecting more effective treatments for CNS and systemic relapse, inclusion of MF, or lead time bias. Further analysis of the impact of different treatment strategies and outcomes in CNSr was limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity within our cohort, and future analyses in a larger cohort should focus on factors associated with outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Chavez: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Sokol: Dren Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Saeed: Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: research investigator; MEI Pharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: investigator; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; sano-aventis U.S.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Other-Secura Bio, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Allen: Epizyme: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Secure Bio: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Gerson: Abbvie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Landsburg: Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schuster: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Svoboda: Atara: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barta: Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) includes a group of rare and heterogeneous disorders with characteristic lymph node histopathological abnormalities. CD can occur in a single lymph node station, which is referred to as unicentric CD (UCD). CD can also involve multicentric lymphadenopathy and inflammatory symptoms (multicentric CD [MCD]). MCD includes human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8)–associated MCD, POEMS-associated MCD, and HHV-8−/idiopathic MCD (iMCD). The first-ever diagnostic and treatment guidelines were recently developed for iMCD by an international expert consortium convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN). The focus of this report is to establish similar guidelines for the management of UCD. To this purpose, an international working group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened to establish consensus recommendations based on review of treatment in published cases of UCD, the CDCN ACCELERATE registry, and expert opinion. Complete surgical resection is often curative and is therefore the preferred first-line therapy, if possible. The management of unresectable UCD is more challenging. Existing evidence supports that asymptomatic unresectable UCD may be observed. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab should be considered for unresectable UCD patients with an inflammatory syndrome. Unresectable UCD that is symptomatic as a result of compression of vital neighboring structures may be rendered amenable to resection by medical therapy (eg, rituximab, steroids), radiotherapy, or embolization. Further research is needed in UCD patients with persisting constitutional symptoms despite complete excision and normal laboratory markers. We hope that these guidelines will improve outcomes in UCD and help treating physicians decide the best therapeutic approach for their patients.

AbstractIdiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare immunologic disorder characterized by systemic inflammation, multicentric lymphadenopathy, and organ dysfunction. Enlarged lymph nodes demonstrate a spectrum of characteristic but variable histopathologic features historically categorized into hyaline vascular (HV) (or hypervascular [HyperV] more recently), plasmacytic, or “mixed.” Though the etiology is unknown, a pro‐inflammatory cytokine storm, often involving interleukin‐6 (IL‐6), contributes to pathogenesis. Anti‐IL‐6 therapy with siltuximab is the only FDA‐ or EMA‐approved treatment based on efficacy and safety in multiple studies. Importantly, no patients considered to have HV histopathology achieved the primary endpoint in the Phase II study. NCCN currently recommends siltuximab first‐line for iMCD, except for patients considered to have HV histopathology. We investigated whether histopathologic subtype should guide siltuximab treatment decisions. Secondary analyses of clinical trial and real‐world data revealed similar clinical benefit across histopathologic subtypes. Notably, only 18 of 79 patients in the Phase II study were consistently classified into histopathologic subtype by three independent review panels, demonstrating limited reliability to guide treatment decisions. Real‐world data further demonstrate siltuximab's effectiveness in patients considered to have HV (or HyperV). Though histopathology is a critical component for diagnosis, there is insufficient evidence to guide treatment based solely on lymph node histopathologic subtype.

Abstract Background: Synthetic lethality (SL) is characterized by the chemical inhibition of multiple aberrant genes to differentially kill malignant cells. We investigated small-molecule combinations for SL through in vitro and in vivo screening and optimization studies (as in the granted patents in USA and China) and demonstrated the synergistic potential of best-in-class combinations of targeted agents, drug repositioning, immune modulation and low-dose combinations. We hypothesize that BTK and mTOR inhibition coupled with an IMID will target multiple key signaling pathways, improve differential apoptosis and target acquired drug resistance. DTRM-555, an optimized mechanism-based combination, consists of the clinically differentiated BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (or DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). In xenograft tumor models, DTRM-555 administered orally has demonstrated superior efficacy over monotherapy at very low dose combinations of the three agents (1/18 of DTRM-12, 1/6 of EV, and 1/6 of POM). DTRM-12 monotherapy has been safe and well tolerated in simultaneous phase Ia trials (US and China) with preliminary efficacy across 50 mg through 400 mg once daily (QD). Here we report the US clinical results of the oral combination therapies DTRM-505 (DTRM-12 plus EV) and DTRM-555 (DTRM-12 plus EV plus POM) for the first time (NCT02900716). Methods: The safety and anti-tumor activity of the oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 and the oral triplet therapy DTRM-555 are evaluated using a "3+3" study design. Enrollment was conducted concurrently with a phase Ia study of DTRM-12 monotherapy; with DTRM-505 opened for accrual when monotherapy DTRM-12 cleared the 200-mg dose level. Eligible patients are at least 18 years old, having ECOG performance status less than 2 with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) or classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Study treatment is administered daily for 21 consecutive days over a 28-day cycle. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was defined during the first cycle of therapy, and treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients underwent tumor evaluations every 2 months and response was recorded using revised response criteria (IWCLL and Cheson 2014). Results: Between 9/2016 and 7/2018, 19 patients have been treated with DTRM-12 monotherapy in the USA (6 pts, 50-300 mg) and China (13 pts, 50-400 mg). Patients have tolerated up to 23+ cycles of DTRM-12 monotherapy. Seven patients, including DLBCL, CLL, MCL, FL and cHL, have been treated with oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 for 2 to 12 cycles. Three patients (2 DLBCL, 1 FL) have been treated with oral triplet therapy DTRM-555, including one patient transitioned from the doublet DTRM-505 under an exploratory arm. No patient has discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) and no DLT has occurred. Recurring AEs are mostly grade 1 or 2 and responses have been seen with DTRM-505 and DTRM-555 across diverse lymphoma histologies (See Tables). All patients evaluable for response demonstrated partial response to DTRM-505 and DTRM-555, with 2/7 (doublet) and 3/3 (triplet) patients remaining on therapy. Conclusion: The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy and for the current fixed dose doublet and triplet combinations. Toxicities have been mild and repeated cycles of study treatment have been well tolerated without delays of subsequent treatment cycles. Enrollment continues for refractory lymphoma patients to demonstrate the safety and efficacy for the first-in-class oral triplet therapy DTRM-555. Disclosures Huntington: Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Schuster:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, 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. He:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma Co. Ltd.: Other: Founder and CEO; Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Founder and CEO. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Dwivedy Nasta:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Rafael/WF: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Other: DSMC; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Landsburg:Takeda: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Other: Advisory board, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Spouse employment; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Svoboda:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Song:Peking University Cancer Hospital (Beijing Cancer Hospital): Employment. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital: Employment. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding. Mato:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 586 Background: Dacetuzumab (SGN-40), a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets CD40, mediates antitumor activity through multiple mechanisms of action, including effector cell functions (ADCC/ADCP) and direct apoptotic signal transduction. Ongoing evaluation of the molecule has led to 2 additional key findings: a gene signature that predicts sensitivity to single-agent dacetuzumab, and upregulation of the pro-apoptotic and chemosensitizing transcription factor TAp63αa when dacetuzumab is combined with rituximab (R) and gemcitabine (GEM). In prior single-agent dacetuzumab trials, several patients who were immediately treated with GEM after progressing achieved unexpected responses. These observations provided rationale for further analysis of the combination of dacetuzumab, R and GEM. Methods: A phase 1b dose-escalation study to evaluate the safety and adverse event profile of dacetuzumab, R and GEM was conducted in patients with relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients received dacetuzumab at cohort-specific doses of 8 or 12 mg/kg IV weekly in combination with R (375 mg/m2 IV for 1 cycle, then once/28-day cycle) and GEM (1000 mg/m2 IV weekly or biweekly) in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation scheme. A maximum number of 8 cycles was permitted. Eligible patients included those with de novo DLBCL, including transformed lymphoma and follicular grade 3, who failed potentially curative therapy. Results: Thirty-one patients with a median age of 68 years (range 29–80) were enrolled and treated in the study (3 patients in each of 3 cohorts + 22 in an expansion cohort). The median number of prior regimens was 3 (range 1–18); 10 patients (32%) had transformed histology and 4 (13%) had prior ASCT. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range 1–8), although 11 patients are still on treatment. Three patients in the first cohort required dose reduction of GEM due to transient, non-dose-limiting thrombocytopenia. The protocol was thus amended to administer GEM on a biweekly schedule. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and MTD was not defined. Based on pharmacokinetic modeling suggesting no significant difference in exposure between dose levels, 8 mg/kg of dacetuzumab was chosen as the dose for the expansion cohort. The combination of dacetuzumab, R and GEM was generally well tolerated. Across all cohorts, the most common adverse events (> 15%) were nausea (42%), thrombocytopenia (35%), fatigue (32%), headache (29%), anorexia (19%), dyspnea (19%), pyrexia (19%), diarrhea (16%), and neutropenia (16%), the majority of which were Grade 1 or 2. Grade 3/4 adverse events related to dacetuzumab occurred infrequently. One patient experienced Grade 3 stress cardiomyopathy that resolved; this patient had a history of congestive heart failure. One patient developed pneumonitis in the left lung and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and subsequently died due to pulmonary toxicity; this patient had received prior radiation therapy to the left chest. There was preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. Of the 28 patients with response assessments, 7 patients achieved CR, 8 PR, 7 SD, and 6 PD per investigator assessment of response, yielding an objective response rate of 54%. Of interest, 1 patient who previously failed ASCT achieved a CR and was able to undergo allogeneic transplant. To date, this patient remains in CR. Conclusion: The combination of dacetuzumab, R and biweekly GEM was generally well tolerated. Evidence of antitumor activity with this combination is encouraging as multiple responses were observed in a population with heavily pre-treated patients. Further investigation with a randomized trial is warranted to more fully characterize safety and efficacy and to determine if sensitivity to this combination correlates with the previously identified single-agent predictive gene signature. Disclosures: Forero-Torres: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Gemcitabine has not been FDA approved for treatment of lymphoma. Dacetuzumab is an investigational agent.. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Nasta:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Northfelt:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Beaven:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Myint:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Whiting:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Drachman:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of heterogeneous hematologic disorders with characteristic histopathological features. CD can present with unicentric or multicentric (MCD) regions of lymph node enlargement. Some cases of MCD are caused by human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), whereas others are HHV-8–negative/idiopathic (iMCD). Treatment of iMCD is challenging, and outcomes can be poor because no uniform treatment guidelines exist, few systematic studies have been conducted, and no agreed upon response criteria have been described. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on the severity of iMCD to improve outcomes. An international Working Group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network to establish consensus guidelines for the management of iMCD based on published literature, review of treatment effectiveness for 344 cases, and expert opinion. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab (or tocilizumab, if siltuximab is not available) with or without corticosteroids is the preferred first-line therapy for iMCD. In the most severe cases, adjuvant combination chemotherapy is recommended. Additional agents are recommended, tailored by disease severity, as second- and third-line therapies for treatment failures. Response criteria were formulated to facilitate the evaluation of treatment failure or success. These guidelines should help treating physicians to stratify patients based on disease severity in order to select the best available therapeutic option. An international registry for patients with CD (ACCELERATE, #NCT02817997) was established in October 2016 to collect patient outcomes to increase the evidence base for selection of therapies in the future.

Key Points An international panel established the first ever diagnostic criteria for iMCD based on review of 244 clinical cases and 88 tissue samples. The criteria require multicentric lymphadenopathy with defined histopathology, ≥2 clinical/laboratory changes, and exclusion of iMCD mimics.