ALBERT

Description: Introduction: As previously reported, the combination of brentuximab vedotin with doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in modified progression free survival (modified PFS) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with newly diagnosed Stage III or IV classical HL in the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial (NCT01712490). The benefit of A+AVD in the ITT population observed in the primary analysis was maintained at 3-years median follow-up [3-year PFS: A+AVD: 83.1% (79.9-85.9), ABVD: 76% (72.4-79.2)] and appears independent of interim PET status, disease stage, and prognostic risk factors. Here we present the efficacy and safety results of longer follow-up at a median 43.3 months. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. The primary endpoint of the study was modified PFS per independent central review. The present follow-up PFS analysis is exploratory and per investigator assessment, with a cutoff date of June 17th, 2019. Patients with ongoing peripheral neuropathy (PN) at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement (defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) during the post-treatment follow-up period. Results: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, the 42-month PFS per investigator for all patients was 82.4% (95% CI, 79.1-85.2) on the A+AVD arm and 76.2% (95% CI, 72.6-79.4) on the ABVD arm [overall HR 0.697 (95% CI, 0.547-0.890)]. Exploratory subgroup analyses of PET2(+) and PET2(-) patients showed a treatment effect in favor of A+AVD. The 42-month PFS in PET2(-) patients was 85.0% (95% CI, 81.6-87.7) for A+AVD and 79.6% (95% CI, 75.9-82.8) for ABVD [overall HR 0.695 (95% CI, 0.526-0.919)]; in PET2(+) patients 42-month PFS was 68.3% (95% CI, 54.5-78.7) for A+AVD and 51.5% (95% CI, 38.2-63.4) for ABVD [overall HR 0.552 (95% CI, 0.308-0.989)]. Upon continued follow-up, 81% (356/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (64%, 283/442) or improvement (17%, 73/442) of their PN events compared with 83% (236/286) with either complete resolution (74%, 212/286) or improvement (8%, 24/286) in the ABVD arm. Among patients with ongoing PN after continued follow-up, the majority were Grade 1/2 events, with 89% (141/159; 59% Grade 1) and 95% (70/74; 65% Grade 1) on the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Overall survival data are not yet mature; per protocol, the final analysis will be performed after 112 deaths have occurred. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~4 years, including data from prespecified subgroups, will be presented. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 43.3 months, A+AVD continues to provide a robust, durable benefit for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL compared with ABVD; the benefit is evident regardless of patient status at interim PET [PET2(+) or PET2(-)] and without the need for treatment intensification. PN continued to completely resolve or improve in patients on the A+AVD and ABVD arms. Together, these data further support the clinical advantages of A+AVD versus ABVD as treatment for patients with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Bartlett: Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Dynavax: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Straus:Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria; Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Macrogenomics: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Illes:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Smolewski:Roche: Other: Travel Expenses. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS, Merck, Novartis, Verastem, Abbvie, Servier, and Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walewski:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, 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; Servier: Honoraria; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: 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; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding. Radford:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Equity Ownership. Munoz:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kim:Roche: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding. Advani:Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment. Younes:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Biopath: Consultancy; Xynomics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Takeda: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Description: Background: A histologic finding of large cell transformation (LCT) in Mycosis fungoides (MF) is often associated with an aggressive clinical course and inferior prognosis (Arulogun et al. Blood 2008). In patients (pts) with advanced MF (stage IIB-IV), LCT has been established as an independent prognostic factor (Scarisbrick et al. JCO 2015). Although CD30 expression is observed more frequently in MF with LCT vs without LCT, a wide range of CD30 expression levels is observed in LCT lesions and the level of expression lacks prognostic value for MF (Vergier et al. Blood. 2000). The ALCANZA study (NCT01578499) demonstrated significantly better rates of objective response lasting ≥4 months (ORR4) (∆43.8%; p

Description: Introduction: Patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory PMBCL (rrPMBCL) are typically treated like those with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), often with limited effective treatment options and poor outcomes. Unlike DLBCL and similar to classical Hodgkin lymphoma, PMBCL has frequent genetic abnormalities leading to over-expression of the programmed death (PD)-1 ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2. This suggests that rrPMBCL should be sensitive to PD-1 blockade. In the phase 1b KEYNOTE (KN)-013 study (NCT01953692), pembrolizumab was associated with frequent and durable responses (Zinzani, Blood 2017) in pts with rrPMBCL. The international phase 2 KN170 (NCT02576990) study was conducted to extend these findings and evaluate correlative biomarkers of response. Here, we present updated results of all pts in KN013 (n=21) and the first full analysis of pts in KN170 (n=53). Methods: KN013 enrolled pts with rrPMBCL who had failed, were ineligible for, or refused autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). KN170 enrolled pts with rrPMBCL who had relapsed after or were ineligible for ASCT with ≥2 lines of prior therapy. In KN013, the initial 10 pts received pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W; the remaining 11 patients and all patients on KN170 received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years. Archival or fresh tumor tissue obtained before pembrolizumab initiation was used for correlative studies. Tumor response was assessed with PET/CT scans by IWG 2007 criteria. The primary endpoint of KN170 was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability. Exploratory endpoints included response by Lugano 2014 criteria and biomarker analyses. Data cutoff dates for this analysis were Apr 4, 2018 for KN013 and April 13, 2018 for KN170. Results: KN013 enrolled 21 pts with a median of 3 prior lines of therapy, of whom 13 (62%) were ASCT-ineligible. KN170 enrolled 53 pts also with a median of 3 prior lines, of whom 39 (74%) were ASCT-ineligible due to chemorefractoriness. In KN013, ORR was 48% (10/21; 95% CI, 26-70), with a CR rate of 33% (7/21). In KN170, ORR was 45% (24/53; 95%CI, 32-60), with a CR rate of 13% (7/53; 11/53 [21% by Lugano criteria]). In KN013, after a median follow-up duration of 29.1 mo (range, 0.6-49.6), median DOR was not reached (range, 1.9+ to 39.8+ mo) (Panel A). 2 patients in KN013 in CR at 2 years remained in CR after a further 12 and 18 mo of follow-up off therapy. After a median follow-up of 12.5 mo for KN170 (range, 0.1-25.6), median DOR was not reached (range, 1.1+ to 22.0+ mo) (Panel A). At data cutoff, no patient who achieved a CR on KN170 had relapsed. In KN013, median PFS was 10.4 mo (95%CI, 3.4 to not reached) with 12-mo PFS rate of 47%; median OS was 31.4 mo with 12-mo OS rate of 65% (Panel B). In KN170, median PFS was 5.5 mo (95%CI, 2.8-12.1) with 12-mo PFS rate of 38%; median OS was not reached (95% CI, 7.3 to not reached) with 12-mo OS rate of 58% (Panel B). In KN013, no new safety signals were observed compared with prior analyses. In KN170, 30 (57%) pts had a treatment-related AE (TRAE). Common (≥5%) TRAEs included neutropenia (19%), hypothyroidism and asthenia (8% each), and pyrexia (6%). 12 (23%) pts had a grade 3-4 TRAE, including 5 (9%) with grade 3 and 2 (4%) with grade 4 neutropenia. Six (11%) pts had an immune-mediated AE including 1 (2%) with grade 4 pneumonitis. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusion: Together with the longer follow-up results of KN013, KN170, the largest prospective clinical trial in rrPMBCL, establishes the robust antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in this disease, with exceptionally durable responses and survival in responding patients. These results provided the basis for the FDA accelerated approval of pembrolizumab in patients with rrPMBCL. Disclosures Armand: Otsuka: Research Funding; Adaptive: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding. Rodig:Merck & Co., Inc.: Research Funding; Affimed Inc.: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Research Funding. Özcan:Jazz: Other: Travel support; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; MSD: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Jazz: Other; Celgene: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Travel payment; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel payment, Research Funding. Fogliatto:Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Walewski:Roche, Celegene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, and Servier: Honoraria; Roche, GSK/Novartis, Takeda, and Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding. Gulbas:Pfizer: Other: Travel expenses; Roche and Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ribrag:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; MSD: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel; Infinity: Consultancy, Honoraria; epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; pharmamar: Other: travel; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; argenX: Research Funding. Christian:Immunomedics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Perini:Janssen and Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen and Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Salles:Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Svoboda:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chatterjee:Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment. Orlowski:Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment. Balakumaran:Amgen: Equity Ownership; Merck & Co., Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shipp:Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Zinzani:PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: 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; SERVIER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: 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; TG Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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.

Description: [§ share last authorship] Background: In 2000-2010, the first large prospective trials in peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) showed outcomes burdened by high failure rates during induction. Concurrently, trials with the anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (ALZ) yielded promising responses in PTCL while demonstrating the feasibility of combining ALZ with CHOP. Hence, the Nordic Lymphoma Group initiated the randomized ACT-1 trial to test, in younger patients (pts) (18-65yrs), the addition of ALZ to CHOP + autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Primary endpoint was the 3 years event-free survival (EFS). Here, we present the final analysis of the ACT-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00646854). Patients and Methods: Overall, 136 pts were randomized (43% of planned sample size due to slow accrual), five did not receive study treatment, and 131 were analyzed (ALZ-CHOP: 65; CHOP: 66). Due to lack of tumoral CD52 expression, anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCL) were not included in the ACT-1 trial. An amendment tapering ALZ dose from 360 mg (30 mg on days 1+2 of each CHOP course) to 120 mg (30 mg on day 1 of CHOP courses 1-4) was introduced early on due to systemic fungal infections in 2 pts. Of the 65 pts treated with ALZ-CHOP, 4 received the pre- and 61 (94%) the post-amendment dose. Monitoring for CMV- and EBV-DNA and antimicrobial prophylaxis were mandatory. Results: The median observation time for the Full Analysis Set was 66 months and the median age 51 yrs. The ALZ-CHOP and CHOP cohorts were well balanced with regard to classical prognostic factors and histological subtypes (PTCL-NOS 58% vs 54%, AILT 21% vs 25%, other 21% vs 21%). Feasibility: Neither CHOP nor ALZ-CHOP pts experienced substantial treatment delay. ALZ exposure did not affect stem cell harvest nor hematopoietic recovery. Grade 4 leucopenia was more frequent in ALZ-CHOP pts (73% vs 35%; p=0.001), whereas the occurrence of grade 3-4 anemia and thrombocytopenia did not differ significantly. After ALZ dose amendment, the frequency of bacterial and fungal infections of grade ≥3 was similar in both treatment arms. ALZ treated pts had more viral events (22/57=42% vs 4/23=17%), mainly due to asymptomatic CMV reactivations. The ratio of serious adverse events per ALZ-CHOP treated patient dropped markedly (from 3.25 to 0.86, comparable with 0.46 for CHOP) after dose amendment. Additional toxicity was mild and similar in both arms. Treatment related mortality was 4% (5% vs 3%). Efficacy: Complete remission (CR) was 52% in ALZ-CHOP vs 42% in CHOP. Primary refractory disease occurred for ALZ-CHOP and CHOP in 23% and 38% of pts, respectively. Overall, females had a significantly better outcome than males (p=0.004), also after adjustment for classical prognostic factors. Analyzing time-related endpoints without knowledge of CD52 expression, 3-years EFS, progression-free, and overall survival (PFS, OS) did not differ significantly between ALZ-CHOP and CHOP (EFS 35% vs 26%, PFS 37% vs 26%, OS 52% vs 50%). Fig.1A shows EFS by treatment arm, by gender, and by gender and treatment arm. Although not significantly different, EFS, PFS and OS values of ALZ-CHOP treated females in the ACT-1 trial were consistently higher than those of non-ALZ treated females or of males regardless of treatment group. RNA sequencing from evaluable pre-therapeutic tumor biopsies defined a signature of differentially expressed genes to be predictive of clinical outcome in ALZ-CHOP but not CHOP treated pts (n=33). Tumor microenvironment genes were prominent in determining response to ALZ. Tumors rich in B-cell milieu showed good responses, while the opposite was observed in tumors with signatures enriched with high endothelial cell genes (p

Description: Introduction The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502), which evaluated whether post-ASCT consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) could prevent disease progression in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients at high risk for relapse. The study met its primary endpoint: significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review with BV versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, P=0.001) (Moskowitz, 2015). The 2 most common adverse events (AEs) in the BV- treatment group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (56%) and neutropenia (35%). We are presenting updated efficacy and safety data after approximately 1 additional year of follow-up after the primary analysis. Methods Patients were randomized to receive BV 1.8 mg/kg q3wk or placebo for 16 cycles (approximately 12 months), 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomization was stratified by response to frontline therapy and by best clinical response to pre-ASCT salvage therapy. Patients whose disease had progressed after salvage treatment were not eligible. Patients received CT scans quarterly for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months during long-term follow-up (LTFU). Clinical lymphoma assessments were performed at each cycle of treatment, quarterly during the first year of LTFU, and every 6 months thereafter. AEs were collected for 30 days after the end of treatment, except for peripheral neuropathies and secondary malignancies, which were followed throughout LTFU. Clinical responses to subsequent BV treatment received after progression were also recorded. Results A total of 329 patients were randomized to the BV- (n=165) or placebo- (n=164) treatment arms. Median PFS per investigator assessment was not reached (95% CI not estimable [NE]-NE) in the BV arm and was 15.8 months (95% CI 8.5-44.0) in the placebo arm (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.71). A sustained plateau with substantial separation is evident between both treatment groups, with improved PFS at 3-years post-randomization with BV consolidation versus placebo (Figure). The 3-year PFS rate was 61% (95% CI 52-68) for the BV arm and 43% (95% CI 36-51) for the placebo arm. Six PFS events (2 progressions and 4 deaths) were recorded after the 24-month evaluation period in the BV arm and 3 in the placebo arm (2 progressions and 1 death). The HR for PFS per independent review was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.82). No new secondary malignancies have been observed since the primary analysis. The number of cases were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (n=4 BV, n=2 placebo). Malignancies on the BV arm included bladder cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). In the placebo arm, secondary malignancies included mantle cell lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). Among the 112 patients on the BV arm who experienced treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy based on a Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Query (SMQ) analysis, 99 patients (88%) experienced some improvement (23%) or complete resolution (65%) of neuropathy symptoms at the time of analysis. Discontinuation of treatment due to an AE occurred in 54 patients (33%) on the BV arm, most commonly due to peripheral sensory and motor neuropathies (14% and 7%, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment as a result of an AE received a median of 9.5 cycles (range, 1 to 15) on the BV arm. The 2-year PFS rate in these patients was 69% (95% CI 54-79) versus 82% (95% CI 71-89) for patients who completed all 16 treatment cycles. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with BV in HL patients at high risk of relapse after ASCT showed an improvement in PFS versus placebo, approximately 3 years since the last patient was randomized. Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS per investigator assessment showed a continued benefit of BV consolidation. No additional secondary malignancies have been observed in either treatment arm and most patients experienced resolution of peripheral neuropathy symptoms. We are currently analyzing clinical responses to BV treatment after disease progression. Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Disclosures Sweetenham: Seattle Genetics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study investigates the use of brentuximab vedotin for consolidation therapy soon after ASCT. . Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Nademanee:Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Agura:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Abidi:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Stiff:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viviani:Italfarmaco SpA: Consultancy; Teva Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda International: Consultancy. Carella:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larsen:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Description: An optimal treatment for patients with primary refractory or relapsed (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) who did not respond to standard salvage therapy has not been established. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) and bendamustine (B) used as monotherapy were shown to be active in R/R HL and both are recommended as a therapeutic option. It has been proposed that the combination of BV with B (BVB) may improve the outcome of R/R HL patients. To test this hypothesis, we compared retrospectively the efficacy and safety of BV and BVB regimen in R/R HL patients. Methods: Since March 2014 all patients with R/R HL treated at PLRG centers were offered either BV in monotherapy every 21 days or in combination with B (B 90 mg/m² on days 1 and 2 of treatment cycle) according to the policy in each center. Results: BV or BVB therapy was administered to 94 patients (median age 33 years, range 18-68) with primary refractory (n=54) or relapsed HL (n=40), including 34 patients after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The patients were treated with the median of 3 (range, 2-12) prior chemotherapy lines. Fifty-seven patients received BV and 37 patients BVB regimen. In 16 of them, BVB was de-escalated to BV after the median of 2 cycles (range, 2-7). The patients' and disease characteristics did not differ between two groups. In the whole study group, the median number of applied cycles per patient was 4 (range, 2-16). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed in 8% of patients. No difference was found between BV and BVB group, with similar rate of grade 3-4 neutropenia (16% vs 13%) and thrombocytopenia (4% vs 3%). Lung infection occurred in 1 patient treated with BV (2%) and 3 treated with BVB (2% vs 8%, p ns), with 2 treatment-related deaths in the BVB group. The response rate after 2 cycles of BV and BVB treatment defined as complete (CMR) or partial metabolic response (PMR) assessed by positron emission tomography was 69% (26% of CMR and 43% of PMR) and 89% (46% of CMR and 43% of PMR), respectively (p=0.036). After 4-6 cycles of treatment, CMR, PMR and stable metabolic disease was documented in 59%, 19% and 13% in the BV group vs. 71%, 17% and 3%, respectively, in the BVB group (p ns). Finally, 36 patients (22 from BV and 14 from BVB group) proceeded to ASCT, and 17 (9 from BV and 8 from BVB group) to allogeneic SCT. The overall and progression-free survival at 24 months were 80% and 51%. The survival curves did not differ between two study groups. In conclusion, our results suggest that BVB is a feasible regimen that provides higher response rate after 2 cycles compared to BV monotherapy. However, the overall response rate achieved after 4-6 cycles of treatment are comparable between BV monotherapy and combined BVB treatment. Infectious complications, including serious lung infections, were observed in both study groups, with two treatment-related deaths in the BVB group. Disclosures Dlugosz-Danecka: Roche: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Jurczak:Nordic Nanovector: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; European Medicines Agency: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Afimed: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding. Zaucha:Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.

Description: Background: MZL, a group of indolent B-cell lymphomas, arises from marginal zone B cells present in lymph nodes and/or extranodal tissues. MZL comprises 5-17% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas in adults (Cervetti et al. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21:851-854). World Health Organization (WHO) classification of MZL consists of the following subtypes: splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) with or without villous lymphocytes, nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL) and extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, also called mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT; Harris et al. Blood. 1994; 84:1361-1392; Chan et al. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995;103:543-560). Subgroups of MZL share some common features but are different in their biology and behavior. Owing to the rarity of MZL, few randomized trials have compared available treatment options; hence, there is a lack of consensus about best practices. Idelalisib demonstrated considerable anti-tumor activity in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (iNHL) in phase 1 (P1) Study 101-02 (NCT00710528), and refractory iNHL in phase 2 (P2) Study 101-09 (NCT01282424; Gopal et al. NEJM. 2014;370:1008-1018). This post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy and safety in 21 patients in the MZL subset. Methods: The P1 and P2 studies were single-arm monotherapy trials assessing the safety and efficacy of idelalisib in relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies (P1) or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (P2). Eligible patients included those with relapsed/refractory splenic, nodal, or extranodal MZL (P1) and MZL that was refractory to both rituximab and an alkylating agent (P2). In the P1 study (a dose escalation study), idelalisib was administered at doses of 50-350 mg BID over a period of 28 days (21 days on, 7 days off) until progression of disease (PD), death, or intolerable toxicity. In the P2 study, patients received idelalisib 150 mg BID until PD, death, or intolerable toxicity. MZL response was assessed with the use of standard criteria for lymphoma (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25:579-586). Results: TheP1 study enrolled 6 patients with MZL (n=3 MALT, n=2 NMZL, n=1 SMZL) who received 150 mg BID (n=3), 200 mg BID (n=1), or 350 mg BID (n=2). The P2 study enrolled 15 patients with MZL (n=9 MALT, n=5 NMZL, n=1 SMZL). Patients had a median age of 74 and 72 years and 50% and 80% were male, in P1 and P2 respectively. Patients had received a median of 4.5 prior regimens in the P1 study [range 1-10] and 2 prior regimens in the P2 study [range 2-9]. Grade ≥3 adverse events in the P1 study included thrombocytopenia 3/6, and anemia, neutropenia, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increases each 2/6. Grade ≥3 adverse events in the P2 study included diarrhea 3/15, neutropenia 3/15, and ALT increase 2/15. In the P1 study, partial response (PR) was reported in 2 patients who received 350 mg BID (NMZL [n=1] and SMZL [n=1]), stable disease [(SD) in 3 patients who received 150 mg BID (n=2) or 200 mg BID (n=1) (MALT [n=2] and NMZL [n=1]), and PD in 1 patient with MALT who received 150 mg BID. In the P2 study, the overall response rate was 7/15 [(47%), including complete response in 1 patient with MALT, PR in 6 patients (SMZL [n=1], NMZL [n=1], MALT [n=4])], SD in 7 patients (NMZL [n=3], MALT [n=4]), and PD in 1 patient with NMZL (Table). Median times to first response in the P1 and P2 studies were 1 month and 3.5 months, respectively. In the P1 study, duration of response (DOR) in the 2 patients with PR was 1 and 11.9 months, respectively, and in the P2 study the median DOR was 18.4 months. In the P1 study, with median follow-up time of 3.1 months, median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months; in the P2 study, with median follow-up time of 5.5 months, median PFS was 6.6 months. Conclusions: P1 and P2 studies suggest idelalisib, with a small patient population, has activity in patients with relapsed/refractory MZL. Idelalisib was well tolerated, with a safety profile that was as expected in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma MZL. There were no apparent disease specific safety signals. Phase 3 clinical trials of idelalisib with combination therapy are in progress for iNHL patients, including MZL patients. Table 1. Phase 1 [Study 02] (n=6) Phase 2 [Study 09] (n=15)* IRC ORR, n (%) [95% CI] 33% [4-78] 47% [21-73] CR 0 7% PR 33% 40% SD 50% 47% PD 17% 7% DOR (months) 1 and 11.9 18.4 PFS (months) 7.4 6.6 Disclosures Martin: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Armas:Gilead: Research Funding. Gopal:Gilead, Spectrum, Pfizer, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria; Spectrum, Pfizer, BioMarin, Cephalon/Teva, Emergent/Abbott. Gilead, Janssen., Merck, Milennium, Piramal, Seattle Genetics, Giogen Idec, BMS: Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Abella:Gilead: Employment. Ye:Gilead: Employment. Philip:Gilead: Employment. Sorenson:Gilead: Employment.

Description: Key Points Early consolidation with BV improves 5-year PFS vs best supportive care and reduces the need for subsequent therapy. At 5-year follow-up, BV shows long-term tolerability, with peripheral neuropathy continuing to improve and/or resolve.

Description: Background Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an effective salvage treatment in patients with relapsing/progressive Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). However, it is unclear how much BV improved the outcome of BV naïve patients who relapsed after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHCT) in real life. To address this question, we compared the outcome of patients who received conventional salvage treatment before the BV era to those who were treated with BV in haematological centres allied within the Polish Research Study Group. The goals of the study were to compare: the response rates to the conventional salvage chemotherapy and to the BV-based treatment, the proportion of patients proceeding to subsequent allogeneic (allo) or second autologous HCT and finally the overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) of relapsing patients after autoHCT treated with and without BV. Methods and study group The study group consisted of adult patients with classical HL relapsing after first autoHCT who were treated either with conventional salvage chemotherapy (between 2001 and 2013; Group 1, n=121) or BV based treatment (between 2012 and 2018; Group 2, n=44). The groups did not differ in terms of age or gender. The patients in Group 2 received more chemotherapy lines before post-transplant salvage treatment (median 3, range 1-6) compared to those in historical Group 1 (median 2, range 1-6) (p=0.013). No patient was treated with immune check points inhibitors. The response to salvage treatment in the majority of patients in historical Group 1 was assessed with conventional computer tomography (CT), while in all patients in Group 2 with CT combined with positron emission tomography. Results The rate of the objective response rate defined as the complete or partial response was higher in Group 2 (84% vs 60%, p

Description: Background: Several studies confirmed the predictive role on treatment outcome of interim-PET after 2nd ABVD cycle (iPET2) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). We hypothesized that interim PET after 1st cycle (iPET1) might define chemosensitivity with a better accuracy than iPET-2. To test this hypothesis, PLRG launched in 2008 a prospective multicenter observational study aiming at assessing the prognostic role of iPET1 and the dynamic of sequential PET response to ABVD. Methods: Adult pts with newly diagnosed early (stage I-IIA) and advanced (stage IIB-IV) consecutively enrolled in 11 Polish centers were risk-stratified by the EORTC/GELA criteria and treated according to the ESMO guidelines: ABVD x 3-4 cycles + IFRT in early stage, ABVD x 6 ± consolidation RT in advanced stage disease. Patients were scanned with iPET1 and iPET2 and no treatment change was permitted based solely on iPET results, with the exception of clinical or radiological evidence of overt HL progression. After the first interim analysis (52 pts enrolled, 2010), which demonstrated that all the iPET1 negative patients had also a negative iPET2, the protocol was amended, limiting the iPET2 scans only to pts with iPET1 Deauville score 5,4,3. Quality control for PET-CT was supervised by the Italian-Polish core lab using a standard methodology. PET scans were interpreted locally according to the Deauville 5-point scale: Score 1 to 3, was considered a negative (-), score 4 to 5 a positive (+) scan. Subsequently all PET scans were uploaded to the web platform WIDEN® for central review and Italian-Polish expert panel (EP) scored them afresh. Discorcondant cases were discussed in a joint review session with all the five EP members. Binary and overall concordance rates were calculated using k Cohen's and alpha Krippendorf's coefficients, respectively. Negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) of iPET1 were calculated using time to progression free survival (PFS) event. Results: Between 2008 and 2014, 346 pts were registered. 35 pts were excluded from the analysis for absence/poor quality of images resulting in 108(35%) assessable pts with early and 203(65%) with advanced HL. Median age at diagnosis was 31(18-80) years. iPET1 was scored 1-3 in 87/108(81%), and 4-5 in 21/108(19%) of pts with early and in 133/203(65%), and 70/203(35%) with advanced stage, respectively. Out of 91pts with positive iPET1, 83 pts underwent iPET2, which remained (+) in 41/83(49,4%) pts. In 22 pts treatment was escalated. 11 of those pts, in whom the treatment escalation was decided solely on positive iPET were excluded from the analysis; the remaining had symptoms or CT evidence of progression. After a median follow-up of 40,2 (3,2-90,2) months 300 pts (103 "early" and 197 "advanced") were evaluable. 65(21,7%) of them (9 in early and 56 in advanced group) had a PFS event: in "early" group 9(9%) showed disease progression (4 with iPET1(-) and 5 with IPET1(+)) and 1 of them died. In advanced stage 49(25%) pts showed disease progression (16 with iPET1(-) and 33 withiPET1(+)) out of whom 13 died; 7 additional pts died without HL progression: 4 from toxicity and 3 from unrelated events. At 36 months NPV and PPV of iPET1 was 93% and 45% in "early" and 81% and 52% in "advanced" group, respectively. The dynamic of response to ABVD was assessed in 189 pts who underwent both iPETs. All 116 pts with iPET1(-) remained (-) in iPET2-(fast-responders). Out of 83pts with IPET1(+) 39 (47%) became iPET2(-)-(slow responders); the rest (34pts: 41%) remained iPET2(+)-(no responders). PFS for fast-responders @36 months was 85%, for slow-responders 80% (log rank p=0,36) and for no-responders 25% (log rank p=0,0000). The EP changed the local iPET1 score in 27 cases: in 14 from (+) to (-) in 13 from (-) to (+). The inter-observer-agreement among reviewers on evaluating a positive vs. negative interim PET scans was good, Fleiss' kappa = 0.73, comparable to that found in analogous studies (IVS, HD0607). Conclusion: iPET1 fails to better identify chemosensitivity in ABVD-treated HL compared to iPET2. PPV of iPET1 is substantially inferior to the published results for iPET2. However NPV of iPET1 is comparable to iPET2 and therefore might guide early treatment de-escalation strategies. Disclosures Zaucha: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Knopinska-Posluszny:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Other: travel, accommodation, Speakers Bureau. Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding.