ALBERT

Description: Key Points We conducted a phase-2 study in newly diagnosed PCNSL utilizing R-MPV and HDC with ASCT. Excellent disease control and OS (2-year PFS: 79%) were observed, with an acceptable toxicity profile and minimal neurotoxicity.

Description: Key Points Replacing rituximab with ofatumumab in second-line therapy for intermediate grade lymphoma does not increase toxicity; ORR/CR are encouraging. An ongoing randomized phase III trial will compare rituximab with ofatumumab, combined with chemotherapy, in relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

Description: Introduction: Cytarabine-containing induction chemotherapy followed by high dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is currently a standard treatment approach for younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). This approach, however, may be associated with lesser efficacy in patients with high-risk disease biology (i.e. with elevated proliferative index, blastic morphology, or TP53 alteration). Older patients are treated with rituximab-based chemotherapy regimens without stem cell transplant. In this single-center prospective phase II study, we treated MCL patients, irrespective of their age, with immunochemotherapy combined with lenalidomide without ASCT to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this regimen. Methods: Treatment consisted of 3 parts: A) 4 cycles of lenalidomide (15mg orally days 1-14) and standard RCHOP chemotherapy in a 21-day cycle B) rituximab and high-dose cytarabine (RHIDAC) administered at a dose of 1,000-3,000 mg/m2 every 12 hours x 4 doses for a total of 2 cycles C) rituximab plus lenalidomide maintenance for 6 months. Eligible patients were untreated MCL, stage II-IV, KPS≥70%, and with adequate organ function. We enriched study enrollment for high risk patients, 31 of a total 47 patients, as defined by Ki-67 ≥30% and/or blastic/blastoid/pleomorphic morphologic subtype. PET/CT after each phase of treatment was completed and interpreted with the 5-point Deauville scale (negative=1-3). The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the 3-year progression free survival. Herein we are presenting preliminary data on the end-of-treatment (EOT) response rate and the toxicity of the regimen, including the interim and EOT PET data. Results: Interim data (as of June 1, 2018) for the first 45 of a planned 47 patients are presented here. Median age was 63 (range 30-79); 82% stage IV; MIPI low, intermediate and high risk were 31%, 31%, and 38%, respectively; 64% of patients had high-risk disease per our definition (28 patients with a Ki-67 ≥30% and 6 patients with blastic morphology). Of the 39 patients who completed Len-RCHOP induction, 85% were PET-negative and after RHIDAC, 95% of patients achieved a negative PET scan (Figure 1). Of the 26 patients who have completed Len-R maintenance, 92% were PET-negative, 8% PET-positive (Table 1). At EOT, 24 patients (92%) achieved a complete remission, 1 patient achieved a partial response, and 1 patient had progressive disease. Among the 24 patients who achieved a CR, the median follow-up is 9 months. Two relapses have occurred at 18 months and 25 months. The patients with a treatment failure (one PR at EOT, one progressive disease at EOT, and 2 relapses), occurred in patients either with a TP53 mutation (3/3 tested, 1 pending) or blastic morphology (3/4 patients). Overall the treatment program was well-tolerated and predominantly hematologic toxicities were observed, particularly during the RHIDAC phase consistent with past experience with this treatment regimen in MCL. During each phase (Len-RCHOP, RHIDAC, and Len-R maintenance), grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed at a rate of 13%, 52%, 16%, respectively; febrile neutropenia 1%, 4%, 0%, respectively; grade 3/4 anemia 11%, 32%, 1%, respectively; and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia 8%, 75%, 2%, respectively. Comparing to our historical data in a cohort of 23 MCL patients (57% low risk), Len-RCHOP resulted in a higher PET-negative rate compared to RCHOP alone, 85% versus 65%, respectively. Conclusion: The addition of lenalidomide to RCHOP chemotherapy appeared to increase the rate of PET-negativity compared to historical results with RCHOP alone. Toxicity occurred as expected and was manageable. Early failures were observed in patients with TP53 mutation or blastic morphology. Although follow-up is limited, early results with this approach are promising. Disclosures Kumar: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hamlin:Portola: Consultancy. Matasar:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Straus:Bayer: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; JUNO: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment. Younes:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria.

Description: Background/methods: Identifying relapsed or refractory (RR) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) patients (pts) eligible for lower-intensity second-line therapy (SLT) will aid in improving short-term and long-term treatment-related toxicity. We conducted a phase II study evaluating PET-adapted SLT with single-agent brentuximab vedotin (BV) followed by augICE (augmented ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide) for BV-naïve patients with RR cHL (Lancet Oncology 2015). In this study, patients who failed 1 line of therapy for cHL were treated with 2 or 3 cycles of BV, 1.2mg/Kg, administered weekly, 3 weeks on and 1 week off. Those who achieved PET-normalization proceeded directly to consolidation with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Those with persistent abnormalities on PET received 2 cycles of augICE prior to consideration for ASCT. At 3-year follow-up, outcomes for patients who achieved PET-normalization following BV alone or BV followed by augICE were identical. Furthermore, baseline metabolic tumor volume (bMTV) predicted outcome and improved the prognostic significance of pre-ASCT PET (Blood 2017). We now report 6-year follow-up from this study evaluating PET-adapted SLT with BV and augICE. Results: 65 pts enrolled onto this protocol, of whom 18 achieved PET-normalization (Deauville ≤ 2) after single-agent BV. These 18 pts included 8 (44%) with primary refractory disease, 7 (39%) with advanced stage disease, and 8 (44%) with extranodal disease. 17 of the 18 pts proceeded directly to ASCT and 1 pt experienced delay resulting in disease progression. That individual achieved PET-normalization following additional salvage chemotherapy (gemcitabine/vinorelbine/liposomal doxorubicin) and proceeded to ASCT. Of the other 47 pts who remained PET-positive after single-agent BV, 35 achieved PET-normalization after augICE, 9 remained PET-positive after augICE, 2 received no additional treatment before proceeding to ASCT (1 pt with Deauville 3 response to BV, 1 with Deauville 4 response), and 1 pt withdrew consent and was lost to follow-up. 64 of 65 pts proceeded to transplant and median post-ASCT follow-up is 5.98 yrs (range 4.4-7.2 yrs). 6-yr overall survival is 86%, 6-yr progression free survival (PFS) is 73%, and 6-yr time to tumor progression (TTP) is 78%. Overall, there have been 8 deaths, which were due to disease progression (n=5), progressive multifocal leukencephalopathy (PML) (n=1), treatment-related respiratory failure (n=1), and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (n=1). Pts who proceeded to ASCT following single-agent BV achieved durable remission with 6-year TTP of 80%. Outcomes for the BV-only group were similar to those who required BV and augICE to become PET-negative (6-yr TTP 82%) and were more favorable than for those who remained PET-positive after BV and augICE (6-yr TTP 56%, p=0.058) (Figure 1). With 6-yr follow-up, bMTV 〉 109.5 cm3remained prognostic for the entire group and aided in predicting which pts ultimately developed disease progression. In particular, among the pts who achieved PET-normalization with BV alone prior to ASCT, 6-yr TTP was 92% vs 40% for low and high bMTV respectively, p=0.017 (Figure 2). Similarly, for pts who achieved PET-normalization following BV and augICE, 6-yr TTP was 85% vs 33% for low and high bMTV respectively, p=0.002. Conclusions: For pts with RR cHL, long-term remission can be achieved following lower-intensity SLT with single-agent BV followed by ASCT, provided PET-normalization is achieved after single-agent BV. bMTV identifies which pts within this favorable group are likely to develop disease progression and therefore treatment strategies using bMTV to direct intensity of therapy should be explored. Disclosures Moskowitz: Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Matasar:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Noy:Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Palomba:Hemedicus: Other: Immediate Family Member, Speakers Bureau ; Merck & Co Inc.: Other: Immediate Family Member, Consultancy (includes expert testimony); Seres Therapeutics: Other: Immediate Family Member, Equity Ownership and Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STRAXIMM: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noble Insights: Consultancy; Evelo: Other: Immediate family member, Equity Ownership; MSK (IP for Juno and Seres): Other: Immediate Family Member, Patents & Royalties - describe: intellectual property rights . Shah:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Perales:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bellicum: 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; Omeros: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MolMed: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyte/Gilead: Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi: Research Funding; NexImmune: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Sauter:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Straus:Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Biopath: Consultancy; Xynomics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Brentuximab vedotin is not FDA approved for use in the second-line setting for Hodgkin lymphoma.

Description: High-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) is the standard of care for relapsed or primary refractory (rel/ref) chemorefractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Only 50% of patients are cured with this approach. We investigated safety and efficacy of CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells administered following HDT-ASCT. Eligibility for this study includes poor-risk rel/ref aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma chemosensitive to salvage therapy with: (1) positron emission tomography–positive disease or (2) bone marrow involvement. Patients underwent standard HDT-ASCT followed by 19-28z CAR T cells on days +2 and +3. Of 15 subjects treated on study, dose-limiting toxicity was observed at both dose levels (5 × 106 and 1 × 107 19-28z CAR T per kilogram). Ten of 15 subjects experienced CAR T-cell–induced neurotoxicity and/or cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which were associated with greater CAR T-cell persistence (P = .05) but not peak CAR T-cell expansion. Serum interferon-γ elevation (P 〈 .001) and possibly interleukin-10 (P = .07) were associated with toxicity. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) is 30% (95% confidence interval, 20% to 70%).  Subjects given decreased naive-like (CD45RA+CCR7+) CD4+ and CD8+ CAR T cells experienced superior PFS (P = .02 and .04, respectively). There was no association between CAR T-cell peak expansion, persistence, or cytokine changes and PFS. 19-28z CAR T cells following HDT-ASCT were associated with a high incidence of reversible neurotoxicity and CRS. Following HDT-ASCT, effector CD4+ and CD8+ immunophenotypes may improve disease control. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01840566.

Description: Patients with relapsed or primary refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieve complete response (CR) before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) generally have better outcomes than those who achieve only partial response (PR). We investigated whether adding rituximab to the ifosfamide-carboplatin-etoposide (ICE) chemotherapy regimen (RICE) could increase the CR rate of patients with DLBCL under consideration for ASCT. Thirty-six eligible patients were treated with RICE, and 34 received all 3 planned cycles. The CR rate was 53%, significantly better than the 27% CR rate (P = .01) achieved among 147 similar consecutive historical control patients with DLBCL treated with ICE; the PR rate was 25%. Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity; it occurred in 7.5% of delivered cycles. No patient had RICE-related toxicity that precluded ASCT. The median number of CD34+ cells per kilogram mobilized was 6.3 × 106. Progression-free survival rates of patients who underwent transplantation after RICE were marginally better than those of 95 consecutive historical control patients who underwent transplantation after ICE (54% vs 43% at 2 years; P = .25). RICE appears to induce very high CR rates in patients with relapsed and refractory DLBCL; however, further studies are necessary to determine whether this treatment regimen will improve outcomes after ASCT.

Description: Abstract 957 Background: For patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), standard-of-care second-line therapy in patients eligible for consolidative high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDT/ASCR) is rituximab (R) combined with a platinum-containing regimen such as ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) or dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP). In patients with early relapse or refractory disease following first-line treatment, the efficacy of second-line rituximab combined with salvage chemotherapy is lower in patients previously treated with rituximab combined with chemotherapy compared to patients treated with chemotherapy alone (Gisselbrecht et al. J Clin Oncol 2010). Ofatumumab (OFA), a fully human monoclonal antibody against CD20, uses an alternate binding site from that of rituximab, and demonstrates more potent complement-dependent cytotoxicity in vitro than does rituximab (Teeling et al. J Immunol 2006). We hypothesize that the inclusion of ofatumumab in second-line therapy could improve response rates for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) relapsing after, or refractory to, rituximab-containing initial therapy. Methods: Between May 2009 and April 2011, 61 patients (pts) were enrolled with relapsed or refractory CD20 positive aggressive B-cell NHL (DLBCL, transformed low grade lymphoma or grade 3B follicular lymphoma). Pts were transplant eligible with either pathologically confirmed relapse after first-line therapy or primary refractory disease. Initial therapy must have included rituximab combined with anthracycline/anthracenedione chemotherapy. Sites elected to treat all of their pts with either ICE or DHAP. Chemotherapy was dosed every 21 days for 3 cycles. OFA was dosed on D1 and D8 of cycle 1, then D1 of cycles 2 and 3. Initially, the first dose of OFA was 300mg, but the study was amended to increase the first dose to 1000mg. All other doses of OFA were 1000mg. Response was assessed after cycles 2 (CT) and 3 (CT + PET). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) using modified RRCML criteria (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol 2007). Results: 61 pts were enrolled; 35 pts were treated with ICE and 26 pts with DHAP. 21 pts received an initial OFA dose of 300mg and 40 pts received 1000mg. High risk disease was well represented, with 80% having disease that was either primary refractory (47%), relapsed within 12 months of diagnosis (30%), or progressed from unknown response within 12 months of diagnosis (3%); 48% of pts had a second-line age-adjusted IPI (sAAIPI) of 2 (41%) or 3 (7%) risk factors. 9 (15%) pts were prematurely withdrawn from treatment due to investigator decision (n=5, usually due to stable disease deemed an inadequate response), AEs (n=3) or pt decision (n=1). 2 pts were CD20 negative and excluded from the efficacy analysis. The ORR in the 59 evaluable pts was 61% (95% CI: 47%–74%), with CR in 37% (95% CI: 25%–51%). For OFA+DHAP, the ORR was 69% (95% CI: 48%–86%), with CR in 42% (95% CI: 23%–63%), and for OFA+ICE, was 55% (95% CI: 36%–72%), with CR in 33% (95% CI: 18%–52%). For patients with sAAIPI of 2 or 3 (29 pts), the ORR was 59% (95% CI: 39%–77%), with CR in 31% (95% CI: 15%–51%). For pts with primary refractory or early relapsing disease, the ORR was 55% (95% CI: 40%–70%), with CR in 30% (95% CI: 17%–45%). 45 pts underwent peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, and 43 (96%) mobilized ≥2×106 CD34+ cells/kg (median, 5.8×106 CD34+ cells/kg). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 47 pts (77%); the most common were thrombocytopenia (59% pts), anemia (36%), neutropenia (26%), lymphopenia (23%), leukopenia (18%), febrile neutropenia (13%), and hypokalemia (13%). 3 pts (12%) treated with OFA+DHAP had grade ≥3 nephrotoxicity. 3 pts discontinued treatment due to chemotherapy related AEs: mental status change (2 pts), respiratory distress (1 pt), and elevated creatinine (1 pt). No treatment related deaths were reported. Conclusions: OFA combined with salvage ICE or DHAP showed promising activity with an ORR of 61%. Treatment was adequately tolerated, with no unexpected toxicity, and stem cell mobilization was not adversely affected. Furthermore, the results are particularly promising in patients with primary refractory or early-relapsing disease, a group that has been reported to have extremely adverse outcomes. In order to compare rituximab to OFA in the salvage setting, a phase III randomized trial of OFA+DHAP and R+DHAP is ongoing. Disclosures: Matasar: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Ofatumumab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of fludarabine- and alemtuzumab-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and is currently under development for the treatment of B-cell malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Waldenstroms macroglobulinemia and follicular lymphoma), as well as autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis). Czuczman:Ortho Biotech: Research Funding; Centocor: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbott: Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cephalon: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rodriguez:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Ortho Biotech: Research Funding. Fennessy:Glaxo Smith-Kline: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shea:Otsuka: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Spitzer:Amgen: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cephalon: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Fayad:GSK: Research Funding. Liao:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Edvardsen:GlaxoSmithKline: Employment. Lisby:Genmab: Employment.

Description: High-dose chemoradiotherapy (HDT) with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is the treatment of choice for patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, its role in the treatment of patients with primary refractory disease is not well defined. The outcomes of 85 patients with primary refractory aggressive NHL who underwent second-line chemotherapy with ICE with the intent of administering HDT/ASCT to those patients with chemosensitive disease were reviewed. Patients were retrospectively classified as induction partial responders (IPR) if they attained a partial response to doxorubicin-based front-line therapy or as induction failures (IF) if they had less than partial response. Forty-three patients (50.6%) had ICE-chemosensitive disease; there was no difference in the response rate between the IPR and the IF groups. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 25% of the patients were alive and 21.9% were event-free at a median follow-up of 35 months. Among 42 patients who underwent transplantation, the 3-year overall and event-free survival rates were 52.5% and 44.2%, respectively, similar to the outcomes for patients with chemosensitive relapsed disease. No differences were observed between the IPR and IF groups, and there were no transplantation-related deaths. More than one extranodal site of disease and a second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index of 3 or 4 before ICE chemotherapy were predictive of poor survival. These results suggest that patients with primary refractory aggressive NHL should receive second-line chemotherapy, with the intent of administering HDT/ASCT to those with chemosensitive disease. Newer therapies are needed to improve the outcomes of patients with poor-risk primary refractory disease.

Description: Abstract 661 Objective: To compare 131Iodine-Tositumomab/BEAM to Rituximab/BEAM as the conditioning regimen followed by autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with relapsed chemotherapy sensitive DLBCL. Patients and Methods: The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN 0401) study sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute enrolled 224 patients between 1/06 and 7/09. Eligible patients were age 18–80 years, had a Karnofsky performance score 〉 70%, persistent or recurrent DLBCL, chemotherapy sensitive disease, and had received 1–3 prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients with transformed DLBCL were excluded. Patients were randomized to receive 131Iodine Tositumomab (dosimetric dose of 5 mCi on day −19 and therapeutic dose of 75 cGy on day −12), carmustine 300 mg/m2 (day −6), etoposide 100 mg/m2 twice daily × 4 (days −5 to −2), cytarabine 100 mg/m2 twice daily × 4 (days −5 to −2), and melphalan 140 mg/m2 (day −1) (Bexxar/BEAM, n=111) vs. rituximab 375 mg/m2 on days −19 and −12 with the BEAM regimen (R/BEAM, n=113). All drugs were given intravenously. The median age at the time of transplant was 56.8 years in the Bexxar/BEAM and 58.8 years in the R/BEAM arm. All 224 patients were included in the intent to treat analysis for the primary endpoint of 2-year PFS. Twelve patients were not transplanted and two patients were ineligible based upon incorrect pathologic subtype and therefore were not included in further analyses Results: The median follow-up of the patients was 25.5 months (mo) (range 13.8– 47.0) in the Bexxar/ BEAM and 24.7 mos (range 4.7 – 58.6) in the R/BEAM arms, respectively. The primary end point of 2-year PFS was 47.9% (95% CI: 38.2%, 57.0%) for Bexxar/BEAM and 48.6% (95% CI: 38.6%, 57.8%) for R/BEAM (p= 0.94). The 2-year OS of all randomized patients was 61.0% (95% CI: 50.9%, 69.6%) for Bexxar/BEAM and 65.6% (95% CI: 55.3%, 74.1%) for R/BEAM (p= 0.38). Patients in complete remission after salvage chemotherapy (CR2) had an improved 2-yr OS compared to patients with primary induction failure (PIF) or chemosensitive relapse (p= 0.005). However, there were no differences in any group by treatment arm. 2-yr OS for CR2 patients with Bexxar/BEAM was 76.9% (95% CI: 62.9%, 86.1%) compared to 79.9% (95% CI: 64.7%, 89.1%) with R/BEAM (p= 0.61). The most common cause of failure was progression/relapse of the lymphoma with a cumulative incidence of relapse/progression at 2 yrs post transplant of 45.0% (95% CI: 35.2%, 54.8%) in the Bexxar/BEAM arm and 48.1% (95% CI: 38.1%, 58.1%) in the R/BEAM arm (p= 0.69). The treatment related mortality was 4.9% (95% CI: 0.8%, 9.0%) in the Bexxar/BEAM and 4.1% (95% CI: 0.2%, 8.0%) in the R/BEAM arms at 2 years post transplant (p= 0.97). Engraftment was similar with neutrophils to 〉 500/ul in 96.1% (95% CI: 92.2%, 100%) of Bexxar/BEAM and 93.5% (95% CI: 88.6%, 98.4%) of R/BEAM patients by day +28 (p= 0.40). Platelet recovery to 〉 20,000/ul with no transfusion by day +100 was present in 84.5% (95% CI: 77.4%, 91.6%) of the Bexxar/BEAM and 81.3% (95% CI: 73.9%, 88.7%) of the R/BEAM patients (p= 0.58). The median maximum mucositis score (by OMAS scale) was higher in the Bexxar/BEAM patients at 0.72 compared to 0.31 in the R/BEAM patients (p 〈 0.0001). One case of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) was reported in each arm of the trial and one additional case of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) was reported in the R/BEAM arm. By exploratory analyses, immune reconstitution as measured by levels of quantitative immunoglobulins and B and T-lymphocyte subsets was not different between the two randomized arms at baseline, day +100, day +365, or day +730. Conclusions: The Bexxar/BEAM and the R/BEAM regimens produced similar 2-yr PFS and OS for patients with chemotherapy sensitive relapsed DLBCL. No differences in engraftment or other toxicities were apparent other than an increase in mucositis with the Bexxar/BEAM regimen. No significant difference in the risk of MDS or AML could be detected with the current follow up. Disclosures: Vose: Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Exelixis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Off Label Use: 131 Iodine Tositumomab combined with BEAM chemotherapy as a transplant preparative regimen for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is an off label use. Burns:Novartis: Research Funding. Press:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria. Fenske:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium (Takeda) Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Description: BACKGROUND: The role of rituximab (R) as a component of therapy for relapsed and refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial. We have previously reported that the addition of rituximab to ICE (RICE) second-line chemotherapy improved outcomes (Kewalramani, 2004). Furthermore, a small phase II study performed at Stanford University (Horwitz et al, 2004) suggested improvement in event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) with the addition of rituximab maintenance therapy following high dose therapy and autologous stem cell rescue (HDT/ASCR) in rituximab naïve patients. However, it is unknown if there is benefit of rituximab maintenace in patients (pts) receiving rituximab as part of pre-HDT cytoreduction. METHODS: We retrospectively identified pts with relapsed and refractory DLBCL who underwent uniform pre-HDT/ASCR cytoreduction with RICE between 1999 and 2006. Pts proceeded to HDT/ASCR if they had a response to RICE chemotherapy. The earlier pts (n=38) did not receive any maintenance (NM) and a subsequent cohort (n=43) was treated with post ASCR rituximab (MR) on one of two regimens (R wkly x 4 at day + 42 and day + 180, n=26 or R q8 wks x 6 starting on day+29, n=17). RESULTS: Median follow up for surviving pts is 2.9 yrs: 4 yrs in the NM group; and 2.2 yrs in the MR group. The 3 yrs EFS is 43% and 84% and OS is 59% and 89% for the NM and MR groups, respectively. A Cox regression model was constructed to include disease status (relapsed v refractory), maintenance rituximab (yes v no) and second-line IPI (LR v LI-HR). Disease status (p = .04) and rituximab maintenance (p = .003) were significant for OS. Only maintenance rituximab was significant for EFS (p 〈 .001) (Figure 1). In analyzing patients who did not receive maintenance therapy by second-line IPI low risk (0–1) and low-intermediate risk-high risk (2–5), as expected, there is a survival difference which approaches significance (p = 0.074) in favor of the low risk group. Maintenance rituximab eliminated the adverse impact of the second-line IPI on EFS and OS for pts with LI to HR disease. For pts with LR disease maintenance rituximab did not influence outcome. It has been previously reported that patients who receive post-transplant rituximab maintenance experience high rates of neutropenia. We noted 16 patients who experienced asymptomatic afebrile neutropenia (Grade III/IV). One pt (2.3%) required hospital readmission post transplant related to fever and neutropenia. Neutropenia was noted early in the treatment course of both regimens. Growth factors were used at the discretion of the physician. CONCLUSION: Maintenance rituximab therapy post HDT/ASCR was well tolerated by patients and in this small sample significantly associated with improvement in EFS and OS. A prospective trial is currently underway to fully evaluate maintenance therapy versus observation (CORAL 50-03B). Figure Figure Patient characteristics RICE Alone RICE + Maintenance Total 38 43 Male 23 22 Female 15 21 Median Age (range) 52 (26–73) 48 (22–69) Disease Status Relapsed 27 18 Refractory 11 25 IPI LR 11 24 LIR-HR 27 19