ALBERT

Description: Introduction Limited stage disease accounts for 30-40% of Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), with better overall survival than advanced stage disease, but with increased late relapses regardless of treatment strategy (Stephens 2016). Preferred treatment for these patients (pts) per NCCN guidelines is abbreviated R-CHOP followed by radiotherapy. Based on promising results of radioimmunotherapy consolidation in SWOG S0313 (Persky 2015), and of PET-directed experience by the BC Cancer Agency (Sehn 2011), we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) PET-directed study to tailor therapy after 3 cycles of R-CHOP, to improve outcomes and decrease toxicities. Methods Pts had non-bulky (〈 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL. Mediastinal, HIV-associated, testicular, central nervous system, and indolent lymphoma were excluded. Pts received standard R-CHOP therapy and had an interim PET scan on day 15-18 of cycle 3, which was centrally reviewed in real time. Pts with negative PET scan (Deauville 1-3, iPET-neg) proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP. Pts with positive PET scan (Deauville 4-5, iPET-pos) initiated 36 Gy of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT), plus additional boost to FDG-avid area up to 9 Gy, within 5 weeks of 3rd cycle of R-CHOP. This was followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan (IFRT-Zevalin) 3-6 weeks after completing IFRT. Final PET scan was performed 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results The study completed accrual in June 2016. Safety, response, interim PET, and immunohistochemistry-based cell of origin (COO) and MYC/BCL2 analyses were presented previously (Persky 2017, Stephens 2017). Of 159 pts enrolled, 1 was upstaged by PET, and 26 pts were ineligible - due to incorrect histology (mostly concurrent indolent or follicular lymphoma grade 3B) (21), lack of diagnostic tissue submission for central pathology review (3), and bulky disease (2). In 132 eligible pts, median age was 62 years, 62% had stage I, 17% had B symptoms, 14% had elevated LDH, 43% had extranodal involvement, and 66% had exclusive involvement of the head and neck region. Stage modified IPI (smIPI, Miller 1998) was 0 in 27%, 1 in 42%, 2 in 28%, and 3 in 4% of the pts. COO by Lymph2Cx was assessable in 87 pts - 68% were GCB, 23% were ABC, and 9% were unclassifiable. Double protein expressers (MYC and BCL2, DPE) were 16%, while 4 (3%) pts had "double hit" lymphoma (DHL) - 2 with MYC/BCL2 and 2 with MYC/BCL6 rearrangements - none of which were DPE. Of 132 eligible pts, 128 had an interim PET scan centrally reviewed, of which 110 were iPET-neg. Only 18 were iPET-pos, 4 of them due to infection (Deauville X) which were treated as iPET-neg. Of 14 truly iPET-pos pts (11%), 2 refused radiation, and 12 pts received IFRT-Zevalin. Eight pts (67%) converted from PR to CR after IFRT-Zevalin and 4 (33%) had PR, for an overall CR of 92% and PR of 4% (with 4% unevaluable). With median follow up of 4.5 yrs (range 1.1 - 7.5 yrs), only 5 pts progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Of 5 progressors, 3 received R-CHOP x 4, 1 was iPET-pos but declined radiation, and 1 went off treatment after 1 cycle of R-CHOP. Eleven pts died from non-lymphoma causes, including 1 pt from secondary AML (iPET-neg arm), and 1 of lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed upon iPET. S1001 5-yr PFS estimate is 87% and OS estimate is 90% (figure 1), with iPET-pos and iPET-neg pts having similar outcomes - PFS 86% vs. 88%, OS 93% vs. 91%, respectively. Five-yr PFS by smIPI was 97% for smIPI of 0, 86% for 1-2, and 30% for 3. GCB had 5-yr PFS of 95%, vs. 70% for ABC and 47% for unclassifiable. DPE pts had 5-yr PFS of 70, vs. 89% for non-DPE pts. All 4 DHL pts maintain remission. Conclusions S1001 is the largest US study of limited stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with best NCTN results in this disease subset. Only 5 patients progressed and 2 died from lymphoma. Our study confirms the distinct biology of limited stage DLBCL, with predominance of GCB origin (68%), and head and neck location (66%). Due to small number of lymphoma events, no strong conclusions about prognostic ability of smIPI, COO, DPE, or DHL, could be made. S1001 demonstrated that 89% of pts maintained excellent outcomes after R-CHOP x 4 with PET-directed therapy. Only 11% of pts were iPET-pos and required radiation, but they also had excellent outcomes. Together with the FLYER trial in younger pts (Poeschel 2018), this NCTN trial establishes R-CHOP x 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited stage disease for majority of the pts. Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy. Stephens:Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bartlett:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Swinnen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Barr:Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Fisher:Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Barclays: Honoraria; prIME: Honoraria. Rimsza:NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibritumomab tiuxetan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

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: Key Points Plasma EBV-DNA is highly concordant with EBV tumor status in Hodgkin lymphoma. Plasma EBV-DNA has prognostic significance in Hodgkin lymphoma, both before therapy and at month 6 of follow-up.

Description: SGN-30 is a monoclonal antibody directed against the CD30 antigen expressed on some hematologic malignancies. Based on encouraging phase I data, a multicenter phase II study was conducted treating patients with refractory or recurrent CD30-positive ALCL with an ECOG performance status of ≤ 2. Thirty-nine patients (24M, 15F) with ALCL were enrolled, with a median age of 57 (range 23–82) and a median of 3 prior therapies (range 2–5). Nine patients had previously received a stem cell transplant. Eighty-five percent of tumors were negative for ALK, a poor prognostic factor. SGN-30 was administred at 6 mg/kg/wk (90 minute infusion, premedications were not required) for 6 consecutive weeks. After 24 patients were enrolled, the dose was escalated to 12 mg/kg/wk in subsequent patients. (Patients with stable disease or objective response were eligible to receive additional cycles of SGN-30. Five patients received ≥ 2 cycles of SGN-30.) Response assessments, as determined by CT scans, were performed 2 weeks after the last infusion. Best response is shown below: CR PR SD PD Pending Eval ORR *Both CRs have ongoing durations of 〉365 days; both patients received additional cycles of SGN-30. **PRs had durations of 27, 53, 139 and 167 days; two additional patients have ongoing durations of 86+ and 25+ days. ***Three SDs have ongoing durations of 96+, 365+, and 365+ days. Two additional patients had SD for 71 and 174 days. 2* 6** 5*** 24 2 21% Three drug-related toxicities ≥ Grade 3 were reported (each was considered possibly related to SGN-30): 1) lymphopenia, 2) catheter related infection and 3) urticaria. No other significant hematologic or biochemical toxicities have been observed. There was one definitely related serious adverse event (Grade 2) in a patient who experienced a transient exacerbation of his cutaneous lesions after 2 doses of SGN-30 but achieved a partial response after continuing on study. This phase II study represents one of the largest prospectively designed trials in relapsed/refractory ALCL and demonstrates good tolerability and clinically meaningful antitumor activity of SGN-30, especially in ALK negative patients who have a particularly poor prognosis.

Description: Background: Induction chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard of care for transplant eligible (TE) patients (pts) with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (uMCL); however, there is no consensus on the optimal induction regimen. The addition of rituximab + high-dose cytarabine (RC) to an RCHOP-like regimen is associated with better outcomes. In addition, two randomized trials have demonstrated superior efficacy and tolerability for rituximab/bendamustine (RB) compared to RCHOP for uMCL. Based on this, we conducted a phase 2 trial of 3 cycles of RB followed by 3 cycles of RC in 23 TE pts with uMCL, with encouraging preliminary results (Armand, BJH 2016). Pts continued to be followed for relapse and survival. Meanwhile, RB/RC became the standard frontline regimen at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). Simultaneously, investigators at Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) initiated a similar study of alternating cycles of RB/RC for uMCL. Herein, we report the results of both phase 2 trials as well as the off-trial experience. Methods: In the DFCI trial, TE pts (age 18-69) with uMCL were treated with 3 cycles of RB (R 375 mg/m2 d1, B 90 mg/m2 d1-2) followed by 3 cycles of RC (R 375 mg/m2 d1, C 3gm/m2 BID d1-2 with dose reductions for age, renal dysfunction, or pre-existing neurotoxicity). Off-trial pts treated with RB/RC at DFCI or in consulting community practices were retrospectively identified using clinical and pharmacy databases. In the WUSTL trial, TE pts (age 18-65) received alternating cycles of RB (cycles 1, 3, 5) and RC (cycles 2, 4, 6) (same dosing as above). Response assessments were made using CT scans for the DFCI trial and PET/CT for the WUSTL trial and DFCI off-trial pts. Results: In total, 86 pts (23 DFCI trial, 49 DFCI off-trial, 14 WUSTL trial) were treated with RB/RC. The median age was 57 (range 30-72). Pts in the WUSTL cohort were more likely to be male, have a high MIPI score, and have blastoid variant (Table). 94% of pts completed 6 cycles of RB/RC therapy. Off-trial pts were more likely to receive a lower starting dose (≤ 2gm/m2) of cytarabine (76%) compared to trial pts (38%). At the EOI, the overall response rate and CRR were 98% and 92%, respectively, with similar response rates across cohorts (Table). 73 pts (85%) subsequently underwent ASCT and 4 additional pts (5%) have ASCTs planned. 9 pts did not undergo ASCT because of persistent or PD (n=3), prolonged cytopenias (n=3), an incidentally identified ASXL1 mutation without cytopenias (n=1), pt preference (n=1), and inadequate stem cell collection (n=1). Delayed platelet engraftment after ASCT was seen for pts receiving alternating cycles of RB/RC compared to sequential RB/RC at day 30 (plts

Description: Relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) remains a clinical challenge, with limited effective treatment options available after stem cell transplantation. In a multicenter phase 2 study, the efficacy of lenalidomide in rel/ref cHL patients was evaluated at a dose of 25 mg/d on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle. Patients remained on lenalidomide until disease progression or an unacceptable adverse event (AE) occurred. Thirty-eight cHL patients were enrolled with a median of 4 (range, 2-9) prior therapies; 87% had undergone prior stem cell transplantation and 55% of patients did not respond to their last prior therapy. Of 36 evaluable patients, responses were 1 complete remission (CR), 6 partial remissions (PRs), and 5 patients with stable disease (SD) for ≥ 6 months resulting in an International Working Committee (IWC) objective overall response rate (ORR) of 19% and a cytostatic ORR of 33%. Decreased chemokine (CCL17 and CCL22) plasma levels at 2 weeks were associated with a subsequent response. The treatment was well tolerated, and the most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (47%), anemia (29%), and thrombocytopenia (18%). Four patients discontinued lenalidomide because of rash, elevated transaminases/bilirubin, and cytopenias. We provide preliminary evidence of lenalidomide's activity in patients with rel/ref cHL, and therefore exploration of lenalidomide in combination with other active agents is warranted. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00540007.

Description: Abstract 415 Background: The ability to cure patients (pts) with advanced Hodgkin's Lymphoma (HL) with combination chemotherapy (CC) (MOPP and variants, ABVD and variants) represented a major milestone in oncology research, and CC became a paradigm for other malignancies. Further, the rationale for combined modality therapy (CMT) (radiation (RT) and CC) in HL evolved based on the high frequency of relapse in initially involved sites. As response rates and survival improved, newer treatments such as the combined modality Stanford V regimen were developed to shorten the duration of chemotherapy, add RT to sites of disease and reduce toxicity while maintaining or improving the cure rate. Indeed, the Stanford V regimen was tested and validated in a Phase II co-operative group trial (E1492) (J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:972). In order to investigate this approach against “standard” therapy, we conducted a randomized Phase III Intergroup trial of ABVD vs. the Stanford V regimen for patients with locally extensive or advanced HL. Objectives: The trial was designed to detect a 33% reduction in the failure free survival (FFS) hazard rate with Stanford V compared with ABVD, which corresponds to a difference in five-year FFS of 64% vs. 74%. Method: Patients with locally extensive (defined as clinical Ann Arbor Stage I-IIA/B and bulky mediastinal disease (BMD) (mass 〉 1/3 maximum intrathoracic diameter on standing postero-anterior chest x-ray or 〉/−10 cm on computerized tomography) or advanced (Ann Arbor Stage III or IV) HL were randomized to receive either ABVD × 6–8 cycles (C) (51% had 6 C, 35% had 8 C, 14% had 5cm or for macroscopic splenic disease). The log-rank test was used to compare FFS for all eligible patients stratified on extent of disease (locally extensive vs. advanced), and number of International Prognostic Factor Project (IPFP) risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7). An extended Cox model was also used to address non-proportional hazard between the two arms. Results: 854 pts enrolled from April, 1999 to June, 2006 and 812 were eligible for analysis. 404 pts were randomized to ABVD and 408 to Stanford V. Median age was 33 yrs in both arms (range 16–83). 53% were men and 47% women; 4% had Stage I, 31% had Stage II, 39% had Stage III and 25% had Stage IV disease by Ann Arbor criteria. 35% of pts on ABVD and 35% on Stanford V had BMD. Three % of pts had nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, 77% of pts had nodular sclerosis HL, 14% had mixed cell HL. Age, stage, pathology and risk factors (0–2 vs. 3–7) were similar in both arms. In total, 65% were IPFP score 0–2 and 33% were 3–6. Response rate. There was no difference in response rates (RR) between the two arms (ABVD=72% CR+ CCR, 7.7% PR, 7.9% SD; Stanford V= 69 % CR +CCR, 7% PR and 10 % SD. 8% were not evaluable for response on ABVD and 9% on Stanford V. Toxicity was similar in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3 + 4 toxicity was neutropenia, and was similar between the 2 groups (76% Grade 3 + 4 in ABVD and 70% Grade 3+ 4 in Stanford V). Grade 5 toxicity was 5 cm and macroscopic splenic disease). There was more Grade 3 lymphopenia (p〈 0.0001) and more Grade 3 + 4 sensory neuropathy (p〈 0.0001) on Stanford V. Thus ABVD (plus RT for BMD) remains the standard of care because Stanford V did not meet the objective of 33% improvement in FFS. For some patients, Stanford V, when given as described with RT, remains an acceptable alternative. Disclosures: Friedberg: Genentech: Honoraria. Blum:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Horning:Genentech: Employment.

Description: Abstract 2800 Background: Pralatrexate (FOLOTYN®) is an antifolate designed for preferential tumor uptake and accumulation. Pralatrexate was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration at a dose of 30 mg/m2 weekly for 6/7 weeks for relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Given that cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) is often an indolent disease treated in a maintenance fashion, the goal of this trial was to identify a dose with clinical activity and minimal toxicity to allow continuous or maintenance treatment. In the present study, designated PDX-010, the initial dose of pralatrexate for relapsed or refractory CTCL was based on data showing that 30 mg/m2 demonstrated activity in patients with aggressive lymphoma. A dose de-escalation strategy was used in PDX-010 to identify an optimal dose for CTCL. Methods: Eligibility included CTCL histology of mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, or primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, with disease progression after at least 1 prior systemic therapy, and written informed consent. The starting dose and schedule was 30 mg/m2 of pralatrexate by intravenous (IV) push weekly for 3/4 weeks. If toxicity as defined per the protocol was observed, subsequent cohorts received reduced doses (20, 15, 10 mg/m2) and/or schedules (weekly for 3/4 or 2/3 weeks). All patients received supplementation with vitamin B12 1 mg intramuscularly every 8 to10 weeks, and folic acid 1 mg orally once daily (QD). Response was evaluated by the modified severity weighted adjustment tool (mSWAT) every 2 cycles for 6 months, and then every 4 cycles. For patients with lymph node involvement, scans were completed at baseline and upon clinical response or end of treatment, whichever occurred first. Results: Fifty-four patients were treated across 2 stages of this study. In the dose-finding phase, 31 patients were sequentially enrolled into 6 cohorts and treated at varying doses and schedules. The optimal dose and schedule, as defined in the protocol, was identified as 15 mg/m2 weekly for 3/4 weeks, based on the tolerability and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] of 50%) observed in the initial 6 patients in that cohort. Among the 31 patients in the dose-finding stage, the ORR for patients treated at a dose intensity ≥15 mg/m2 weekly for 3/4 weeks was 61% (11/18), and the ORR for those patients treated in lower-dose cohorts was 8% (1/13). The second stage of the study included 23 additional patients treated at 15 mg/m2 weekly for 3/4 weeks, for a total of n = 29 patients treated at this optimal dose. Among these 29 patients, the median number of prior systemic therapies was 4.5 (range 1 to 11), and patients received pralatrexate for a median of 4 cycles (range 1 to 23). Patients enrolled in this cohort could be dose-escalated at investigator discretion if there was an absence of toxicity and a response 〈 CR. At this time 53/54 patients treated in this study are evaluable for efficacy, including 28/29 patients treated at 15 mg/m2 for 3/4 weeks. At the optimal dose, the ORR was 43% (12/28) and 50% (20/40) in patients treated at a dose intensity ≥15 mg/m2 weekly for 3/4 weeks. At the optimal dose/schedule, grade 1–2 adverse events (AEs) occurring in 〉10% were fatigue (34%), mucositis (28%), nausea (24%), edema (24%), epistaxis (21%), pyrexia (17%), constipation (14%), and vomiting (14%). The only grade 3 AE in 〉10% was mucositis (17%). Hematologic toxicities were limited to grade 3 neutropenia (3%), grade 1–2 anemia (14%), grade 3 anemia (3%), grade 1–2 thrombocytopenia (7%), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (3%), grade 1–2 leukopenia (3%), and grade 4 leukopenia (3%). No grade 4 nonhematological toxicities were observed. Conclusions: Pralatrexate shows high activity with acceptable toxicity in patients with relapsed or refractory CTCL at the identified optimal dose and schedule of 15 mg/m2 weekly for 3/4 weeks. The lack of significant hematologic toxicity or cumulative toxicity seen in this study suggests that pralatrexate should be further evaluated as continuous or maintenance therapy for patients with CTCL. Final efficacy and tolerability data will be reported. Disclosures: Horwitz: Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Foss:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Speaker. Zain:Allos Therapeutics, Inc. : Speakers Bureau. Lechowicz:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation : Consultancy. Shustov:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Koutsoukos:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. Fruchtman:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment. O'Connor:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Duvic:Allos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding.

Description: Abstract 1644 Introduction: Previous phase 2 single agent trials with the immunomodulatory agent, lenalidomide, in patients with relapsed or refractory HL demonstrated overall response rates (ORR) of 14–29%, with a median duration of response of 6 months. Likewise, a single agent trial utilizing the orally available HDAC inhibitor, panobinostat, in 127 patients with relapsed/refractory HL after prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) demonstrated an ORR of 27% with a median duration of response of 6.9 months. Based on the encouraging single agent activity of these agents and in vitro synergy of combined panobinostat and lenalidomide in myeloma cell lines, we are conducting a phase I/II trial to determine the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and overall response rate (ORR) with this combination and results of the phase I study are presented. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory classical HL (cHL) or lymphocyte predominant HL (LP HL) after at least one prior therapy are eligibile. Measurable disease ≥1 cm in at least one dimension, ejection fraction ≥45%, ECOG PS 0–2, QTc on ECG ≤ 450 msec, ANC ≥1200/mm3, platelets ≥100,000/mm3, AST/ALT ≤ 2.5 × the upper limit of normal (ULN), bilirubin ≤ 1.5 × ULN, and creatinine clearance ≥60 ml/min are required at study entry. Prior ASCT, lenalidomide, and panobinostat are permitted. In the phase I trial, escalating doses of panobinostat (15 or 20 mg) days 1, 3, and 5 weekly are combined with lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21 utilizing a cohorts of 3 design. DLT is defined during cycle 1 and includes grade 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, grade 4 infection, grade 3 infection for 〉 7 days, treatment delays 〉 14 days, and other grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicity. Six patients will be enrolled at the MTD to ensure patient safety prior to phase 2 enrollment. Twenty-eight days defines a cycle and patients may remain on therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response is assessed after cycles 2, 6, and every 4 cycles thereafter by International Harmonization Criteria (Cheson, JCO 2007). Results: Seven patients (6 males) with cHL (n=6) and LP HL (n=1) and a median age of 31 (range 24–72) have been enrolled. Patients received a median of 3 prior therapies (range 3–5), 1 patient received prior radiotherapy, 3 patients were refractory to their most recent therapy, 3 patients had prior ASCT, 6 patients had received prior brentuximab vedotin, and no patients had prior lenalidomide or panobinostat. Other characteristics included stage III-IV disease in 100% (57% stage IV), bulky adenopathy ≥5 cm in 14%, and bone marrow involvement in 14%. Seven patients have completed one or more cycles of therapy (median 3, range 1–4) with either 15 mg (n=3) or 20 mg (n=4) of panobinostat + 25 mg lenalidomide. Four patients discontinued therapy for progressive disease (PD) after 4 cycles (n=3) and 1 cycle (n=1), respectively. Three patients continue to receive protocol treatment, all receiving panobinostat 20 mg days 1, 3, and 5 weekly. No DLTs have been observed. Grade 3–4 events included neutropenia (43%), lymphopenia (29%), thrombocytopenia (29%), and hypophosphatemia (29%). No QTc prolongation has been observed. Dose reductions from 15 mg panobinostat days 1, 3, and 5 weekly + lenalidomide 25 mg to 15 mg panobinostat days 1, 3, and 5 weeks 1 and 3 only + 20 mg lenalidomide were required in 2 patients for grade 3–4 neutropenia during cycles 3 and 4. ORR is 33% in 6 evaluable patients with a complete response in 1 patient with cHL and partial response in 1 patient with LP HL. One patient has not yet undergone restaging scans. Conclusions: Combined panobinostat and lenalidomide appears to be well tolerated in patients with relapsed/refractory HL without dose limiting myelosuppression, cardiac toxicity, QTc prolongation, or other grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicity. Study accrual continues, 2 additional patients will be added to the highest dose level (panobinostat 20 mg days 1, 3, and 5 weekly for 4 weeks + lenalidomide 25 mg days 1–21) to complete the phase I trial and will be followed by anticipated enrollment of a maximum of 25 patients to a two-stage phase 2 trial targeting an ORR of 30% or higher. Disclosures: Blum: Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Panobinostat and lenalidomide are not approved for the treatment of HL.

Description: Background The international prognostic score (IPS) (Hasenclever et al., NEJM 1988) uses 7 factors (age〉 45, male sex, hemoglobin 15,000, and lymphopenia〈 600) to predict a 5 year freedom from progression (FFP) of 42%-84% and overall survival (OS) of 56%-89% for patients with advanced HL. Constructed from a retrospective analysis of patients treated before 1992, the IPS continues to be the most commonly used risk stratification index for advanced HL. Recent studies suggest that the predictive range of the IPS has narrowed due to improved outcomes of patients treated with current therapy (Moccia et al. JCO 2012). In this report we prospectively evaluated the ability of the individual components of the IPS to predict outcome in patients enrolled on the US Intergroup trial E2496. Methods All seven IPS (IPS-7) variables were recorded for all patients at study entry. FFP was defined as the time from study entry to disease progression or relapse; deaths that occurred during remission that were not preceded by disease progression/relapse were censored. OS was defined as the time from study entry to death from any cause. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to construct survival curves. Univariate and multivariate analysis (MVA) was performed using Cox proportional-hazards models. We subsequently constructed an alternative prognostic score utilizing the factors which were significant on MVA (PS-3). Results From 1996-2006, 854 patients with advanced HL, were randomized to treatment with either ABVD or Stanford V, with no significant differences in outcome (Gordon et al, JCO 2013). While the IPS-7 remained prognostic it did not stratify the lowest risk patients (0-1 risk factor) or patients with 3-5 risk factors, as its predictive range was narrowed due to improved clinical outcomes (Fig 1a and 2a). Table 1 shows the univariate and multivariate analysis for IPS-7 and outcomes. In contrast to the original IPS-7, on MVA, only two factors, hemoglobin and stage were significant for FFP, and three factors for OS: hemoglobin, stage, and age. We then evaluated a new 3 factor score (PS-3) utilizing variables significant on the MVA. The PS-3 was significant for both FFP (p=0.0001) and OS (p