ALBERT

Description: The phase II CAVALLI (NCT02055820) study assessed efficacy and safety of venetoclax, a selective, B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2) inhibitor, with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in first-line (1L) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including patients demonstrating Bcl-2 protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry (Bcl-2 IHC-positive). Eligible patients ≥18 years with previously untreated DLBCL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, and International Prognostic Index 2-5. Venetoclax 800 mg (days 4-10, cycle 1 and days 1-10, cycles 2-8) was administered with rituximab (8 cycles) and CHOP (6-8 cycles); 21-day cycles. Primary endpoints: safety, tolerability, and complete response (CR) at end of treatment (EOT). Secondary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Comparative analyses used covariate-adjusted R-CHOP controls from the GOYA/BO21005 study, an appropriate contemporary benchmark for safety and efficacy. Safety and efficacy analyses included 206 patients. CR rate at EOT was 69% in the overall population and was maintained across Bcl-2 IHC-positive subgroups. With median follow-up of 32.2 months, trends were observed for improved investigator-assessed PFS for venetoclax plus R-CHOP in the overall population (Hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.87) and Bcl-2 IHC-positive subgroups (HR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.34-0.89), versus R-CHOP. Despite a higher incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (86%), related mortality was not increased (2%). Chemotherapy dose intensity was similar in CAVALLI versus GOYA. The addition of venetoclax to R-CHOP in 1L DLBCL demonstrates increased but manageable myelosuppression and the potential of improved efficacy particularly in high-risk, Bcl-2 IHC-positive patient subgroups.

Description: Abstract 1644 INTRODUCTION: Rituximab penetration in central nervous system is largely unknown in human. Experiments in monkeys showed that 0,1% of serum rituximab concentration was achieved in cerebrospinal fluid. Reports in patients are limited (Rubenstein JL, Blood 2003 and Petereit HF, Multiple Sclerosis 2009). They demonstrated similar low levels of cerebrospinal fluid penetration with standard dose (375 mg /m2) rituximab in patients with central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma or multiple sclerosis. METHOD: We conducted a phase 2 trial in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. Patients were treated with an intravenous combination of high dose methotrexate (8 g/m2), high dose cytarabine (2 g/m2) and high dose rituximab (750 mg/m2 every 1–2 weeks × 13 infusions). We obtained from four patients paired cerebrospinal fluid and serum samples and rituximab concentration were determined in each. Samples were collected at different time points just before rituximab infusion and represent trough levels. RESULTS: 11 cerebrospinal fluid samples were available and their 11 paired serum samples. Mean cerebrospinal fluid and serum levels were 2,04 ug/mL (0,49–4,08) and 297,09 ug/mL (211,26–504,47) respectively. Mean cerebrospinal fluid levels were 0,71% (0,18–1,5%) of serum levels. No relationship was made between cerebrospinal fluid level and the number of rituximab dose administered. CONCLUSION: In patients with primary CNS lymphoma receiving high dose 1–2 weekly rituximab. cerebrospinal fluid concentration achieve is low compared to serum levels. However, administration of higher dose of intravenous rituximab can increase penetration in central nervous system but its clinical impact is unknown as cerebrospinal fluid levels are still low. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Description: Abstract 1641 Rituximab has proven efficacy and tolerability for treating B-cell malignancies. IV rituximab administration can take several hours, consuming considerable healthcare resources. A SC rituximab formulation has been developed which may shorten administration time, increase patient (pt) convenience, and potentially reduce IV administration-associated costs. Rituximab efficacy depends on CD20 binding, and Ctrough rituximab levels reflect rituximab exposure throughout the therapy cycle; therefore, achieving a non-inferior Ctrough level with SC dosing is expected to provide comparable efficacy to IV dosing. BP22333 (NCT00930514) is a two-stage phase Ib study assessing PK and tolerability of SC vs IV maintenance rituximab in pts with first-line or relapsed FL. Stage 1 dose-finding results (Salar et al, ASH 2010, abstract 2858; Salar et al, EHA 2012, abstract 0794) identified a fixed dose of 1400 mg for formal Ctrough non-inferiority testing in Stage 2. We report Stage 2 data. The Stage 2 objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of simulated Ctrough of rituximab SC and IV, using a non-inferiority test with a lower boundary of 0.8 for the 90% confidence interval (CI). Secondary endpoints include SC vs IV rituximab safety and area under the serum concentration-time curve. Eligible pts (N = 157) were aged ≥18 years with an ECOG performance status of ≤ 2, and histologically confirmed CD20-positive grade 1, 2, or 3a FL requiring treatment. Eligible pts must have achieved a complete or partial response following IV rituximab-based induction therapy for FL and have received ≥1 cycle of IV rituximab maintenance within 16 weeks of completing induction. Pts (N = 154) were randomized 1:1 to receive SC rituximab (1400 mg) or IV rituximab (375 mg/m2) for their remaining maintenance cycles, stratified by 2-monthly (q2m) vs 3-monthly (q3m) regimen. Study arms were balanced for age, sex, body surface area, FL grade at diagnosis, induction therapy and number of maintenance doses prior to study entry. As of May 11, 2012, 13 SC pts had withdrawn (7 for progressive disease [PD], 4 for AEs, 1 at investigator's decision, 1 for ineligibility) and 17 IV pts had withdrawn (10 for PD, 4 for AEs, 3 for ineligibility). Median treatment duration on-study was 14.8 months (range, 0–19) in the SC arm and 13.8 months (range, 0–19) in the IV arm. The primary endpoint of the study was met. Geometric mean Ctrough,SC:Ctrough,IV ratios were 1.24 and 1.12, respectively, for q2m and q3m, and lower limits of the two-sided 90% CI (1.02 and 0.86, respectively) exceeded the protocol-specified non-inferiority limit (Ctrough,SC:Ctrough,IV ratio of 0.8). Therefore, 1400 mg SC rituximab was concluded to be non-inferior to 375 mg/m2 IV rituximab administration. AE incidence and intensity were generally balanced; 79% of pts in each arm experienced AEs. Serious AEs were observed in 12% and 14% of pts in the SC and IV arms, respectively; none occurred in 〉 1 pt in either arm. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18% and 17% of pts in the SC and IV arms, respectively; the only grade 3/4 AEs occurring in 〉 1 pt in either arm were neutropenia (2 pts in each arm) and arthralgia (2 pts in the IV arm). Administration-related reactions (ARRs) were the most frequent AE and had a higher incidence in the SC arm (reported in 31% of SC vs 4% of IV pts). ARRs were mostly local reactions; the most common in the SC arm were: erythema (13%), injection site erythema (5%), and myalgia (5%). Further safety data will be presented. PK data for SC and IV rituximab administration demonstrate non-inferiority of 1400 mg rituximab SC administration to that of the approved IV rituximab maintenance regimen for both q2m and q3m schedules. The overall AE profiles were similar for SC and IV rituximab administration, with the exception of local ARRs, which had a higher incidence in the SC arm compared with the IV arm, reflecting the expected change in the ARR profile with SC administration. Induction and maintenance therapy using the 1400 mg SC rituximab dose is being assessed in the phase III BO22334 study. Disclosures: Salar: Roche: Consultancy. Off Label Use: Subcutaneous (SC) administration of rituximab as maintenance therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Larouche:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Brewster:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Catalani:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. McIntyre:Roche: Employment. Sayyed:Roche: Employment. Haynes:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Description: Introduction: BCL2 overexpression leading to evasion of apoptosis is common in hematologic malignancies. In DLBCL, 50% of patients (pts) overexpress BCL2 protein, 30% overexpress BCL2 and MYC (double-expressor [DE]) and 5-10% have translocations of BCL2 and MYC (double-hit [DH]), all of which are associated with a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that combination of the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) with chemotherapy would improve DLBCL outcomes based on pre-clinical and early clinical data. The Phase Ib part of the CAVALLI (NCT02055820) study assessed the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CHOP + rituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G) with Ven (200-800mg) in non-Hodgkin lymphoma, recommending 800mg of Ven + R-CHOP for Phase II. The single-arm, multicenter Phase II part of CAVALLI investigated the efficacy of Ven + R-CHOP in all first-line (1L) DLBCL pts, by BCL2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) status within cell-of-origin (COO) subtypes, by BCL2 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and in DE and DH pts, with the intent to compare against a matched pt population in the R-CHOP arm of the GOYA Phase III study. Here we report the first safety, efficacy and biomarker analyses in all pts from this ongoing Phase II study. Methods: Eligible pts (age ≥18 yrs; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2; 1L DLBCL; International Prognostic Index score 2-5; ≥1 measurable lesion 〉1.5cm) were assigned to receive six 3-weekly cycles of R-CHOP + 800mg Ven daily for 10 days (Days 1-10, except Cycle 1: Days 4-10), followed by two 3-weekly cycles of 800mg Ven on Days 1-10 + R on Day 1. The primary endpoint was PET-CT response 6-8 weeks after the last R dose (EoT), according to a modified version of Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Biomarker analyses in CAVALLI and GOYA were performed in pre-treatment tumor samples including a BCL2 IHC assay (cutoff: 50% medium/high expression), MYC IHC assay (cutoff 40% signal), BCL2 and MYC FISH, and COO assay (Nanostring). Results: 211 pts were enrolled; 208 received any treatment and were included in efficacy and safety analyses. Overall, pt characteristics were similar for CAVALLI and GOYA, except CAVALLI enrolled more Ann Arbor Stage IV (65.4% vs 47.1%) and BCL2 IHC-positive pts (57.7% vs 50.0%). The EoT complete response rate in all pts did not differ significantly between CAVALLI and GOYA (69.2% vs 62.8%, respectively; Table 1), but was improved in BCL2-positive subgroups, specifically in BCL2 FISH-positive (70.0% vs 47.5%) and DH (71.4% vs 25.0%) pts. With 20 months' median follow-up in CAVALLI, disease progression and death had occurred in 29 and 6 pts, respectively. When compared with GOYA and adjusted for baseline covariates by Cox methodology, PFS improvement was observed in BCL2 IHC-positive pts (HR, 0.53; 95% CI: 0.30-0.93), including within both activated B-cell (ABC; HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.19-0.94) and germinal center B-cell (GCB; HR, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95) COO subgroups. No PFS benefit was observed in BCL2 IHC-negative GCB pts; the BCL2 IHC-negative ABC subgroup was too small for evaluation (Figure 1). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 85% (176/208) of pts in CAVALLI versus 66% (373/574) in GOYA; the majority were cytopenias, infections and febrile neutropenia (Table 2). In CAVALLI, 1% (3/208) of AEs were fatal versus 5% (30/564) in GOYA but follow-up was longer in GOYA (57 vs 20 months). The higher rate of AEs in CAVALLI led to dose interruptions/discontinuations of both Ven and R-CHOP; 61% of pts had 〉90% relative dose intensity (RDI) of Ven; 73.2% of CAVALLI pts had 〉90% RDI of each of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide versus 76.4% for doxorubicin and 77.6% for cyclophosphamide in GOYA. There were no major differences in grade 3-4 AEs or the RDI of R-CHOP across intention-to-treat and BCL2-positive subgroups. GCSF prophylaxis was recommended, but not uniformly delivered. Conclusions: The addition of Ven to R-CHOP in 1L DLBCL treatment resulted in improved efficacy in BCL2 IHC-positive pts compared with matched GOYA controls. Higher rates of cytopenia, infection and febrile neutropenia were observed in CAVALLI versus the R-CHOP arm in GOYA. These data further support exploration of Ven + R-CHOP in a high-risk population of BCL2-positive 1L DLBCL, including DH pts. Disclosures Morschhauser: Epizyme: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feugier:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Flinn:Agios: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gasiorowski:Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria. Greil:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Illés:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Johnson:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Genmab: Consultancy; Squibb: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Servier: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Servier: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board. Trněný:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Mir:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Kornacker:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Punnoose:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech Inc: Employment. Samineni:Genentech Inc: Employment, Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Szafer-Glusman:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Petrich:Abbvie: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Sinha:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Mobasher:Genentech Inc: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC. Zelenetz:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Description: Background: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have a heterogenous prognosis. Recently a simple score, the PRIMA-PI, was developed based on the PRIMA clinical trial (Bachy et al Blood. 2018). With only two factors (beta-2-microglobulin level 〉 3 mg/L and bone marrow involvement), this index was at least as discriminatory as FLIPI on the training and validation cohorts. The validity of the PRIMA-PI was confirmed on Czech and German FL cohorts and a patient group from the Nordic Lymphoma Group. However, further validation is needed to confirm the use of PRIMA-PI in place of FLIPI for prognostic assessment. Indeed, in the era of new chemo-free treatments, it seems important to challenge the potency of traditional prognostic factors and scores. Recently, rituximab combined with lenalidomide (R2) was compared to conventional immunochemotherapy (R-chemo) in the phase III RELEVANCE trial. The aim of our study was to validate PRIMA-PI in the RELEVANCE trial cohort and compare its performance with FLIPI (Solal-Celigny et al. Blood. 2004) and FLIPI2 (Federico et al. JCO. 2009). A secondary objective was to evaluate potential differences in terms of prognostic bio-clinical parameters between the R2 and R-chemo arms. Methods: All patients with available data for FLIPI, FLIPI2, and PRIMA-PI from the intention to treat population of the RELEVANCE study were included in the analysis. PFS according to each prognostic score were assessed in the total population and by treatment arms. Data were not mature enough to compare OS distributions. Performance metrics (log-rank p value and Net Reclassification Improvement [NRI]) were calculated for each group to assess concordance and discriminating ability of each score. Results: Median follow-up time for the study was 38 months. Overall, 846 RELEVANCE patients were included in the analysis. Data were available for 845 patients for FLIPI score assessment, 832 for FLIPI2 and 807 for PRIMA-PI. Group repartition according to the FLIPI and the FLIPI2 were largely imbalanced compared with PRIMA-PI. FLIPI classified very few patients in the low risk group (15% LR) while 49% of the patients were at high risk (HR), and 36% were at intermediate risk (IR). Similarly, FLIPI2 risk categories were as follow: 8% LR, 50% IR, and 42% HR. On the contrary, PRIMA-PI divided the study population into three equal groups (33%, 33% and 34%). In the total population, FLIPI and PRIMA-PI were predictive of PFS (p=0.029 and p=0.004, respectively); FLIPI2 showed poor performance (p=0.094). PFS curves based on each score are shown in Figure 1. NRI index indicated that the PRIMA-PI yielded analogous segregation for PFS with FLIPI (NRI 0.16; 95% CI: -0.008, 0.318; Table 1). In the R-chemo arm, both FLIPI and PRIMA-PI could isolate different prognostic groups for PFS, whereas FLIPI2 could not. Conversely, none of the indices were able to significantly discriminate outcomes for patients treated with R2. Interestingly, analysis showed that some usual prognostic factors, especially those likely to reflect tumor burden such as beta-2 microglobulin and LDH, were not predictive for PFS in the R2 arm. In contrast, low albumin (