Citations

Abstract Background An association has been identified between the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and prognostic clinical factors and outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). This association can result in inadvertent selection bias in clinical trials to exclude patients with aggressive disease due to the inability to delay treatment long enough to fulfill enrollment criteria, compromising the validity of clinical trial study results to the general population. A similar concern exists in the relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL setting regarding patient selection bias against patients with aggressive disease requiring immediate treatment following relapse or progression. Here we examine the time from progression after immunochemotherapy (IC) to the initiation of first salvage chemotherapy and its association with outcome. Patients and Methods: Newly diagnosed patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study, and followed for progression/relapse, retreatment, and death. This analysis includes patients with their first r/r DLBCL following frontline IC who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy as identified and included in a previous publication (Farooq et al, BJH 2017). The progression-to-treatment interval (PTI) was defined as the time in days from date of progression from IC to initiation of salvage therapy. The date of progression was defined as either a) the date biopsy was obtained for patients who had a biopsy to confirm progressive disease or b) the date of the scan or clinical examination indicating progression in patients who did not have a biopsy performed. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from initiation of first salvage therapy to progression or relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause; overall survival (OS) was defined as time from initiation of salvage therapy until death due to any cause. Results: 162 patients with r/r DLBCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2012 who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy with intent to transplant and had confirmed dates for both progression after IC and start of salvage therapy were evaluated. Median age at first progression for these patients was 64 years (range 36-76) and 104 (64%) were male. Median time from diagnosis to first progression on IC was 6.7 months (IQR: 4.6-12.7). Initial salvage therapy was R-ICE (80%), R-DHAP (8%), rituximab, oxaliplatin, cytosine arabinoside, and dexamethasone (ROAD) (6%), and other (7%). At a median follow-up of 49 months from initiation of salvage therapy (IQR: 33-74), 116 patients had died (72%). Median PTI was 6 days (IQR: 2-13). 110 patients (68%) had biopsy confirmation of disease prior to initiating salvage therapy; median PTI was 2 days (IQR: 1-7) for patients who had biopsy confirmation vs. 7 days (IQR: 3-16) in patients without biopsy confirmation, Wilcoxon p=<0.0001. There was no difference in OS from initial salvage therapy between patients who did not have biopsy confirmation (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.74-1.60, p=0.68) compared to patients with biopsy confirmation. Patients with short PTI (0-6 days) had significantly worse overall survival from initiation of salvage therapy (median OS = 7.6 months, HR=2.10 (95% CI: 1.43-3.08) compared to patients who initiated therapy 7 or more days from progression (median OS = 29.7 months), logrank p<0.0001. This association remained consistent (HR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.48-3.26, p<0.0001) after adjusting for age and biopsy confirmation of progression. Short PTI was also associated with inferior response rate to initial salvage therapy (51% vs. 65%, p=0.058), lower rate of proceeding to transplant after initial salvage therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0063), lower rate of being event-free 24 months from initial salvage therapy (16% vs 33%, p=0.011) and lower rate of ever proceeding to transplant (44% vs. 59%, p=0.057). Conclusions: A short progression-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with inability to proceed to transplant and inferior overall survival in r/r DLBCL. These results have implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in the relapsed/refractory setting. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.

Abstract Background: The oral BTK inhibitor ibrutinib is the only approved therapy for patients with symptomatic Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS) is a rare complication of WM that results from infiltration of malignant lymphoplasmacytic cells into the central nervous system (CNS) causing neurological deficits. Treatment options in patients with BNS are limited to agents with CNS penetration. Ibrutinib can penetrate into the CNS, but data on its efficacy in BNS is lacking outside case reports. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study evaluating the efficacy of ibrutinib in patients with BNS. The diagnosis of BNS was established in patients with a clinicopathological diagnosis of WM by radiological and/or cytological evidence of CNS involvement by WM, and response was assessed based on recently published criteria. Ibrutinib was given orally at doses of 420-560 mg PO once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Response was assessed using criteria from the 8th International Workshop for WM (Minnema et al. Haematologica 2017). Events were defined as death from any cause, progression of disease and stopping ibrutinib from any reason. Time to events was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We present data on 24 patients with BNS treated with ibrutinib. The median age at diagnosis of WM was 60 years (range 38-76 years) and 14 patients (58%) were men. The median lines of therapy for WM prior to BNS diagnosis was 1 (range 0-7 lines), and 9 patients (38%) were untreated for WM at the time of BNS diagnosis. Previous WM therapies included anti-CD20 antibodies (n=15), alkylators (n=13), nucleoside analogues (n=8), proteasome inhibitors (n=3), immunomodulators (n=2), and autologous transplant (n=1). The median age at BNS diagnosis was 65 years (range 38-80). The median time from WM to BNS diagnosis was 4 years (range 0-27 years). In 2 patients, the diagnosis of BNS was made concurrently with WM diagnosis. The median number of BNS lines prior to ibrutinib was 1 (range 0-5 lines). Previous BNS therapies included intrathecal chemotherapy (n=9), high-dose methotrexate (n=6), bendamustine (n=3) and radiation therapy (n=3). In 7 patients (29%), ibrutinib was the first line of treatment for BNS. The most common symptoms at BNS presentation were cognitive deficits (n=10), sensory deficits (n=8), ataxia/falls (n=8), motor deficits (n=6), headache (n=5) and seizures (n=5). MRI findings included leptomeningeal enhancement (n=16) and brain masses (n=5). Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow cytometry confirmed the presence of clonal CD19+ in 19 patients (79%). Biopsies were performed in 5 patients (21%) and confirmed presence of WM cells. 4 patients had normal MRI but had abnormal CSF cytology and/or flow cytometry. Tissue was not obtained in 1 patient in whom MRI showed leptomeningeal enhancement. Interestingly, 2 patients were diagnosed with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma secreting IgG paraprotein. The median serum IgM (n=20) prior to ibrutinib initiation was 1,294 mg/dl (range 125-5,938 mg/dl), and the median hemoglobin level was 11.9 g/dl (7.7-15.2 g/dl). Ten patients (42%) received ibrutinib 560 mg PO once daily, and 14 (58%) received ibrutinib 420 mg PO once daily. At best response, median serum IgM and hemoglobin levels were 340 mg/dl (82-3,330 mg/dl) and 14.6 g/dl (range 9.2-16.0 g/dl). Based on consensus BNS response criteria, complete response was attained in 2 patients (8%), partial response in 14 (58%) and clinical improvement in 3 patients (13%). With a median follow-up time of 13 months (95% CI 8-21 months), 5 patients have stopped ibrutinib, 3 due to BNS progression, 1 due to grade 3 muscle cramps and 1 due to arrhythmia, and 3 patients have died, 2 from infection and 1 from BNS progression. The median event-free survival (EFS) from ibrutinib initiation was not yet reached. The 1-year and 2-year EFS rates were 71% (95% CI 46-86%) and 52% (23-75%), respectively. Conclusion: Ibrutinib is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with BNS. Disclosures Palomba: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Talaulikar:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Buske:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tedeschi:Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Simpson:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Novartis: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding, TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tam:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Treon:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Castillo:Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) characterized by poor treatment outcomes with conventional chemotherapy, including CHOP [complete remission (CR) ∼40%]. Retrospective studies suggest that the incorporation of etoposide into chemotherapy regimens may improve outcomes compared to CHOP. In contrast, anthracyclines appear to have a limited role in PTCL, largely attributed to p-glycoprotein related resistance. Pralatrexate was the first drug approved for patients (pts) with relapsed PTCL, providing a rationale to evaluate it in the front-line setting. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of a novel combination for the primary therapy of pts with PTCL whereby the anthracycline in CHOP backbone was replaced with etoposide (CEOP) alternating with pralatrexate (P). Methods Pts > 18 years (yrs) with PTCL stages II-IV with no prior therapy and adequate end organ function were eligible. Eligible histologies included, PTCL-NOS, AILT, ALCL (ALK positive pts only allowed if IPI >3). CEOP (Cycle A) was administered as: cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV d1, etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV d1-3 (or 100 mg/m2 IV d1 and 200 mg/m2 PO days 2-3), vincristine 2 mg IV day 1 and prednisone 100 mg/day X 5 alternating with P (cycle B) 30 mg/m2 IV d 15, 22 and 29 (with vitamin B12 and folate supplementation). Growth factors were used to support both cycles of therapy. Imaging to assess response was done after cycle 2B, 4B and 6B. Pts achieving a remission were eligible for consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) after cycle 4B at physician discretion. The primary statistical aim was to improve the CR rate from 40 to 63% with CEOP-P and optional transplant. Secondary objectives included assessment of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity of the regimen. A two-stage Simon design (alpha=0.10, 90% power) tested the null hypothesis that the CR rate would be </= to 40%. For the first stage of 20 evaluable pts, the trial would be terminated if 8 or fewer pts experienced a CR after course 2B of chemotherapy. For the second stage, a total of 34 pts were required with at least 17 achieving a CR at the end of therapy to consider the regimen useful. Results 34 pts were enrolled and one withdrew consent before starting therapy, leaving 33 pts enrolled between 7/2011 and 1/2013. Characteristics are shown in Table 1. 27 pts received at least 2 cycles of therapy. 6 pts received only 1 cycle due to early disease progression in 4 and adverse events in 2. Grade 3-4 toxicities attributed to therapy included, anemia (27%), thrombocytopenia (12%), febrile neutropenia (18%), mucositis (18%), sepsis (15%), increased creatinine (12%) and liver transaminases (12%). At the end of stage 1, 10 of 20 pts (50%) achieved a CR; therefore accrual proceeded to stage 2. At the time of this initial analysis, the overall response rate is 70%. To date 15 pts (45%) have achieved a CR with two additional pts pending evaluation. Overall, the 1-yr EFS is 48% (95% CI 28-64), and 1-yr OS 70% (95% CI 47-84) (Figures 1 and 2). 6 pts (18%) to date (n=3 CR, n=2 PR and 1 with stable disease) have received consolidation with ASCT and all are in CR post-transplant. Pts who proceeded to ASCT were younger than the non-transplant cohort (median age 58 versus 64 yrs) with other clinical characteristics being similar. On exploratory bivariate analyses, age <60 yrs, absence of B symptoms, low IPI score (0,1), achieving a CR, and receiving a ASCT were associated with better EFS. Attaining a CR was the only factor associated with better OS and was highest in patients with low IPI (78%) and those with ALCL histology (75%). Conclusions CEOP-P met the pre-defined stage 1 response criteria. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact on the final CR rate and secondary objectives of EFS and OS. Defining optimal front line therapy in PTCL continues to be a challenge and an unmet need. Disclosures: Advani: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pralatrexate is currently only approved for relapsed/refractory PTCL. Lechowicz:Allos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Carson:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Foss:merck: Research Funding; spectrum: Research Funding; eisai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; seattle genetics: Research Funding. Horwitz:Celgene : Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirn Pharma: Consultancy; Genzyme : Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pro:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Pinter-Brown:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Smith:Micromet: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Allos: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Shustov:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Savage:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Vose:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Background The ubiquitin proteasome system (UPS) maintains homeostasis in eukaryotic cells by degrading and recycling proteins associated with DNA transcription and cell cycle regulation. In tumor cells with a high protein turnover rate, particularly in immunoglobulin secreting cancers such as Waldenströms Macroglobulinemia (WM), proteasomes are critical for sustained cell proliferation. Proteasome inhibitors (PI) such as bortezomib and carfilzomib target the B5 subunit of the proteasome catalytic core and disrupt its activity leading to accumulation of polyubiquitinated proteins. Although highly effective in WM, persistent use of bortezomib eventually leads to emergence of a bortezomib resistant (BR) subclone. Point mutation in the PSMB5 gene (encoding the B5 subunit) leading to altered binding kinetics is identified as a potential underlying mechanism of PI resistance. Despite these adaptive modifications that support resistance to PI resistance, the UPS as a whole remains a relevant target with vulnerable sites that can be therapeutically exploited. The 19S cap of the proteasome contains deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBS) that function to deubiquitinate proteins prior to their entry into the proteasomal core. Using a novel DUB-inhibitor b-AP15, which blocks the UCHL5 and USP14 DUBS, D’Arcy et al demonstrated that disruption of these DUBS does not alter proteasomal activity yet induces robust tumor cell death in various cancers. Aim Investigation of b-AP15 in preclinical models of BR WM and characterization of associated downstream signaling interactions. Methods For these studies, we developed and used BR variants of the most commonly used WM cell lines (variants termed BCWM.1/BR, RPCI-WM1/BR and MWCL-1/BR). Proteasomal activity was measured in these cells using synthetic fluorogenic peptide substrates and apoptosis was measured by annexin-v/PI staining. For gene expression profiling (GEP), the Nanostring nCounter mRNA quantification assay was utilized. Results We treated all BR WM clones with either single agent bortezomib (10nM), carfilzomib (10nM), b-AP15 (100nM) or all three agents in combination and assessed their effect on chymotrypsin-like, caspase-like and trypsin-like proteasomal activity. b-AP15, either alone or in combination with the other PI, did not alter proteasomal activity, nor did it abrogate the inhibition of chymotrypsin-like activity of other PI. Although proteasomal activity was not disrupted, we observed an increase in high molecular weight ubiquitinated proteins on immunoblot analysis. We hypothesized that despite the BR cells resistance to B5-targeting PI, they would remain sensitive to UPS inhibition if targeted through DUB inhibition. We treated BR cells with b-AP15 at concentrations ranging from 50nM - 1.25uM and observed that b-AP15 induced robust WM cell death in a dose and time dependent manner. Apoptosis was more pronounced in MWCL-1/BR cells and optimal cell death (55%) was observed at 500nM; however a commitment towards cellular demise was evident by PARP-1 and caspase cleavage as early as 3 hrs. Use of a pan-caspase inhibitor resulted in rescuing of the BR WM cells from b-AP15 mediated death and demonstrated a caspase-dependent death process. In order to gain further mechanistic insight into the processes that regulates response to b-AP15, we performed GEP and immunoblot of BR WM cells treated with 50nM of b-AP15. We observed an increase in phospho-p38 protein, which belongs to the MAPK family and regulates IL8 secretion. When BR WM cells were treated with a p38 inhibitor in combination with b-AP15, a significant decrease in cell viability was noted relative to b-AP15 (100nM) alone. Furthermore, GEP and network analysis identified key regulator genes associated with p53, cell cycle and MAPK signaling. Summary We provide first evidence that inhibition of the DUBS, UCHL5 and USP14 with b-AP15 results in caspase-dependent apoptosis of BR WM cells. Our investigation uncovers important molecular interactions that may dictate the BR cells responsiveness to DUB-inhibition by b-AP15. These observations validate the pervasive role of the UPS and confirm alternate therapeutics targets using our unique BR WM models. We are grateful to the Waterfall Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Research Fund, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the International Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Foundation for their continued support. Disclosures: Martin: Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Background : Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor was approved for the treatment of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) in January, 2015 based on the results of a clinical trial of 63 previously-treated patients with WM. Data on outcomes with ibrutinib outside of clinical trials are limited. Methods : Medical records of patients with WM seen consecutively between 02/01/2015 and 06/01/2018 at Mayo Clinic, MN, FL and AZ were reviewed and those treated with ibrutinib at any point during their disease were included. Refractoriness to prior therapy was defined as disease progression on therapy or within 2 months of stopping treatment. The response rates were assessed by WM VI International Workshop Criteria. Adverse events were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (AEs) v4.03. All time-to-event analyses were performed from the time of initiation of ibrutinib. Results : Eighty patients [previously treated, n=67 (84%), treatment-naïve, n=13 (16%)] received ibrutinib for active WM. Median follow-up was 18 months (95% CI: 12-19) and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI: 27-NR) for the entire cohort at the date of last follow-up. The median age was 67 years (range: 50-88) and the median ECOG performance score was 1 (range: 0-3) at the time of ibrutinib initiation. Median lines of therapies prior to ibrutinib for the previously-treated patients was 2 (range: 1-9) and 35 patients (44%) had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy. Of the 80 patients, 52 patients (43 previously treated, 9 treatment-naïve) had data for response assessment. The baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters at initiation of ibrutinib are outlined in Table 1a and prior therapies are mentioned in Table 1b. Overall response rate (ORR) was 90% (100% in patients with ibrutinib as primary therapy and 88% in salvage therapy setting); major-response rate (MRR) was 77%. Median time to first and best response was 2.1 months (95% CI: 1.5-3.5) and 5.4 months (95% CI: 3.5-13), respectively. Other clinically relevant endpoints and AEs related to ibrutinib therapy are outlined in Table 2 and 3, respectively. The median time-to-next therapy was 33 months (95% CI: 28-NR). At last follow-up, 25 (32%) patients had discontinued ibrutinib therapy. The reasons for discontinuation was progression (n=8), elevated liver enzymes (n=4), cognitive changes (n=1), inability to achieve better than MR (n=1), atrial fibrillation (n=3), consolidation with autologous stem cell transplantation after PR with ibrutinib (n=1), transition to hospice care due to progressive head and neck cancer (n=1), infection in lower extremity (n=1), transformation to DLBCL (n=1), blistering rash which resolved after ibrutinib discontinuation (n=1), obscure GI bleed that resolved after ibrutinib discontinuation (n=1), fatigue (n=1) and for unclear reasons recorded as treatment intolerance (n=1). Following discontinuation of ibrutinib, 21 patients received salvage therapy. Of these, data regarding the response to salvage therapy was available in 9 (43%) patients (VGPR=2, PR=3, SD=3 and progressive disease=1); median PFS from the salvage therapy following ibrutinib discontinuation was 18 months (95% CI: 2-25). Of the 4 patients who were not treated following ibrutinib discontinuation; 1 elected hospice care due to concurrent head and neck cancer progression, and the other 3 patients elected to be monitored off therapy (one had achieved SD and two had PR from ibrutinib). Fourteen patients were evaluable for IgM rebound following ibrutinib discontinuation. Of those, 5 (36%) had sudden increase in IgM level [median: 158% from the IgM level after ibrutinib discontinuation (range: 22%-1368%)] within a median of 2 months (range: 1-3 months) and 1 patient required plasmapheresis for symptomatic hyperviscosity. Four of 5 patients received salvage therapy between 0-15 months. At last follow-up, 11 patients (14%) had died of whom 3 were on ibrutinib at the time of death [CNS involvement, (n=1), causes unrelated to WM, (n=2)]. Conclusions : Ibrutinib is an effective agent in WM patients with MYD88L265Pmutation. Our data regarding outcomes in non-trial setting appear comparable to the results observed in the pivotal clinical trial. Hematologists should be aware of unique ibrutinib associated toxicities and clinically relevant IgM rebound phenomenon following abrupt discontinuation of ibrutinib. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gertz:janssen: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Medscape: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apellis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy. Kumar:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction This phase 1/2 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin (BV) administered in combination with nivolumab (Nivo) in adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) who have failed frontline therapy (NCT02572167). Results from Parts 1 & 2 have been previously reported, wherein safety, efficacy, and biomarkers consistent with immune activation were observed in pts with R/R cHL (Herrera et al., Blood 2018). In Part 3, patients were treated with BV + Nivo on Day 1 of each cycle. In contrast, pts in Parts 1 & 2 received BV on C1D1 and Nivo on C1D8 with concurrent admin on subsequent cycles. Herein we present safety, efficacy, and biomarker results for Part 3 and updated progression free survival (PFS) from Parts 1 & 2. Methods Pts in Parts 1 & 2 received up to four 21-day cycles of staggered dosing (day 1 BV 1.8 mg/kg, day 8 Nivo 3 mg/kg in Cycle 1) and concurrent thereafter, with steroid and antihistamine premedication. Pts in Part 3 received up to four 21-day cycles of concurrent BV + Nivo on Day 1 with antihistamine premedication. Following Cycle 4 response assessment (Lugano Classification Revised Staging System with the incorporation of the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria [LYRIC, 2016]) responding pts were eligible to undergo autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results 30 pts were treated in Part 3 and all were evaluable for efficacy. Pt characteristics included the following: median age 31.5 yrs (range; 20 - 66), 63% female, 93% prior ABVD, 37% primary refractory HL, 30% relapsed within 1year of frontline therapy, 30% with extranodal disease and 17% with bulky disease at enrollment. 28 pts completed all 4 cycles. 1 pt discontinued treatment (tx) due to an adverse event (AE; Grade 3 [G3] elevated Gamma-Glutamyltransferase) and 1 pt due to progressive disease (PD). The latter pt eventually died due to PD. All pts are off tx and have been observed through the safety reporting period. 37% of pts experienced a G3 or higher tx emergent AE prior to ASCT. 30% of the pts experienced infusion related reactions (IRRs), which occurred most frequently during Cycle 2. Potential G3 or higher immune-related AEs (IRAEs), excluding IRRs, occurred in 2 pts, one of whom required steroids for G4 pneumonitis, which subsequently resolved. Among the 30 efficacy evaluable pts, the complete response (CR) rate was 80% (24/30), with an objective response rate (ORR) of 93%. 47% of pts (14) had a Deauville ≤2, and 17% (5) had Deauville 3. 5 pts with CR had a Deauville >3 and met LYRIC criteria for IR-2. 4/5 pts had a negative follow-up biopsy that confirmed CR and in 1 pt the PET finding was considered to be a false positive as contrast enhanced CT did not reveal any abnormality. All 5 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and remain in CR at follow-up. Among all treated patients, 25 went directly to ASCT after completing BV + Nivo tx with a median 6.8 x 106 CD34+ cells/kg (range 1-20) collected. Median times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were 12 and 14 days, respectively. 4 pts required additional salvage therapy subsequent to study tx. Patients were followed for a median of 6 months from ASCT (N=25, range 0.8-8.8) and 10 months from first dose (N=30, range 1.8-12.7). The estimated 9-month PFS rate in all-treated pts was 88%. This is comparable to all-treated pts in Parts 1 & 2, whose estimated 9 and 15 month PFS were 86% and 82%, respectively (Fig 2). Biomarker testing was performed on peripheral blood samples, included immunophenotyping, serum cytokine analysis, and TCRβ sequencing. Concurrent dosing of BV+ Nivo resulted in increased levels of both activated and dividing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, as well as increased regulatory T-cells and circulating plasmablasts. Cytokines and chemokines associated with innate and adaptive immune activation, including Type I and Type II interferons, IL-18, and IP-10, were significantly upregulated following BV + Nivo, while TARC levels were significantly diminished following therapy. TCRβ sequencing revealed clonal expansion in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Conclusion A concurrent dosing schedule of BV + Nivo was well tolerated with a high CR rate of 80%. Biomarkers evaluated in Part 3 indicate immune activation in the periphery following BV + Nivo. Cumulatively, the results in Part 3, along with the durable remissions noted in Parts 1 & 2, support BV + Nivo combination as an encouraging first salvage therapy prior to ASCT in pts with R/R cHL. Disclosures Advani: Forty Seven: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Regeneron: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vose:Celgene: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: 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. Feldman:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; KITE: Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ogden:Seattle Genetics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Taft:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zak:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment, Equity Ownership. Galderisi:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Herrera:Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; KiTE Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: 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.

Abstract Background Waldenstršms macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare and incurable indolent Non-Hodgkin's lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Rarity and limited availability of authentic preclinical models has been a major constraint in drug development for WM. We recently reported the establishment and characterization of a novel human WM cell line, RPCI-WM1. Thereafter we evaluated the tumorigenic potential of this unique WM cell line in a xenograft mouse model along with its ability to produce human IgM in vivo. Moreover, we assessed its potential as a possible model for enhanced understanding of WM cell biology in vivo and a mechanism to conduct functional studies and preclinical anti-WM drug evaluation. Aim The primary goal of this experiment was to develop and validate an in vivo WM model that can be used to investigate WM cell biology as well as drug evaluation. Methods The RPCI-WM1 cell line (1x106 cells) was injected both subcutaneously and via tail vein into female SCID mice. Engraftment was validated via detection of human IgM (ELISA) and tumor growth (as well as response to therapy) was monitored by weekly assessment of IgM levels and external tumor formation measurements. Results After subcutaneous injection (flank) into mice, the RPCI-WM1 cells developed localized tumors that secreted human IgM detectable in serum as early as 14 days. Progressive increase in IgM was measured in the serum and this corresponded with tumor growth in a time-dependent fashion. On average, tumor tissues grew to a median of 3 cm and IgM levels reached a median of 823 ng/mL by Day 30 post-implantation. We also assessed the practical utility of this xenograft mouse model for evaluation of therapeutics, using a compound X (propriety drug with demonstrable in vitro anti-WM effects). Eleven days post-implantation, the mice were randomized into 3 groups receiving either DMSO (n=6), 100 mg of compound X (n=7) or 200 mg/kg of compound X (n=7) every alternate day via intraperitoneal injection for 26 days. On Day 37, mice were sacrificed and tumor volume was measured. We observed a 48% reduction in tumor volume in the 100mg/kg cohort, with no additional anti-WM benefit noted in the 200mg/kg cohort. Human IgM secreted by the xenografted tumors was measured by ELISA and was significantly lower in mice treated with compound X versus the control group (Figure 1). We also conducted immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis on tumor tissues obtained from 9 mice treated with compound X (both dose cohorts) or DMSO alone. IHC staining demonstrated changes in the known target proteins of compound X (such as BCL2, p53, Ki-67) between the treated and untreated mice. Summary Thus we demonstrate that the RPCI-WM1 cell line can be dependably used to induce tumor growth through xenotransplantation in SCID mice and this mimics the IgM secreting clinical disease model. This can then be used to serve as a platform for preclinical testing of novel anti-WM therapeutics and allow for subsequent correlative studies for pharmacodynamics purpose. Comprehensive data regarding this model its utility in evaluation of various biological questions such as those relevant to the tumor microenvironment as well therapeutic modeling will be presented. We are grateful to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and the International Waldenstršm Macroglobulinemia Foundation for their continued support. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) are common lymphoid malignancies in which malignant B-cells arrested at various stages of differentiation proliferate within lymph nodes and occasionally other tissues. The microenvironment that supports the growth and survival of NHL B cells consists of a complex network of immune cells and cytokines and its specific composition has been shown to have significant clinical implications. The intratumoral immune cells include effector and regulatory T (Treg) lymphocytes that are more than simple residual elements from the normal lymph node structure. We previously explored whether the extent of T cell infiltration played a role in the clinical outcome of patients with B-cell NHL and found that an increased percentage of CD4+ T cells in the diagnostic biopsy of lymphoma patients significantly correlated with an improved 5-year overall survival. We have also shown that intratumoral Treg cells significantly suppress the anti-tumor response. Based on the fact that intratumoral T-cells are important in B-cell NHL, we evaluated whether genetic variation in genes that regulate the T-cell response may be associated with lymphoma risk. Methods: We genotyped 257 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 50 candidate genes related to T-cell differentiation and function in a clinic-based study of 441 Caucasian NHL cases and 475 frequency matched Caucasian controls seen at the Mayo Clinic from 2002–2005. Tagging and nsSNPs were selected from HapMap. The most prevalent homozygous genotype was used as the reference group and each SNP was modeled individually as having a log-additive effect, expressed as ordinal odds ratios (OR) per variant allele and 95% confidence intervals, in an age- and sex-adjusted logistic regression analysis. We also evaluated the consistency of the findings for the most common types of B-cell NHL - diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and CLL/SLL. For gene-level analyses, we used principal components (PC) analysis using all SNPs from a gene; those PCs that explained > 90% of the variability were then modeled in a logistic regression analysis and significance was determined using a likelihood ratio test. We also evaluated the association of haplotypes from each gene with risk of NHL using the score test implemented from HAPLO.SCORE. Results. The mean age at diagnosis was 60.1 years for cases and 58% were male; among controls, the mean age at enrollment was 61.7 years and 55% were men. In the PC gene analyses, PRF1 (perforin gene - involved in cytotoxicity; p=0.004), CD276 (B7-H3 gene - involved in co-stimulation; p=0.01), TBX21 (T-bet gene – regulates Th1 cell development; p=0.02), and IL6 (p=0.02) were significant at p<0.05; haplotype analysis showed similar results, with the addition of CARD15 (NOD2 gene – regulates Th1 responses; p=0.02). There were 2 SNPs in PRF1, and both the intronic SNP rs3758562 (OR=1.38; 1.13–1.69) and the synonymous coding SNP rs885821 (OR=0.80; 0.63–1.02) were associated with NHL risk overall and for each subtype. There were 2 SNPs in CD276, and both the intronic SNP rs7176654 (OR=1.29; 1.07–1.56) and the mrna-utr SNP rs3816661 (OR=0.82; 0.68–0.99) were associated with NHL risk overall and with the CLL/SLL and follicular NHL subtypes specifically. There were 2 SNPs in TBX21, and only the mrna-utr SNP rs7502875 (OR=0.73; 0.59–0.92) was associated with NHL risk overall and for each subtype. There were 11 SNPs in IL6, and the intronic SNP rs2069835 (OR=1.88; 1.24–2.84) and the locus-region SNP rs2069824 (OR=1.73; 1.20–2.50) were each associated with NHL risk overall and each subtype. Finally, there were 9 SNPs in CARD15, with only the nonsynonymous coding SNP rs5743291 (OR=1.43; 1.02–1.98) being associated with overall NHL risk, and risk was specific to FL. Conclusions. Genetic variation in several genes that play critical roles in T-cell maturation and function was associated with lymphoma risk. These genes appeared to be associated with the differentiation and function of effector T-cells particularly Th1 and Th17 cells. These results provide potentially important insights into the role of T-cells in lymphomagenesis.