ALBERT

Description: Background: Standard treatment in PTCL pts is unsatisfactory due to a high rate of early progression. Alemtuzumab (A), a monoclonal anti CD52 antibody, has demonstrated efficacy in relapsed PTCL pts. The results of the final analyses of the ACT-1 phase III and the ACT-2 phase III trial, comparing standard CHOP to A-CHOP showed higher response rates, but did not yield significant differences in EFS, PFS and OS in both previously untreated young and elderly patients, but the planned sample sizes could not be reached due to low recruitment. We undertook a planned pooled analysis of both ACT trials comparing CHOP with A-CHOP to increase statistical power. Patients and Methods: Between 2007 and 2013, 252 pts from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and The Netherlands were randomized to receive either 6 cycles CHOP or A-CHOP at 14 day intervals. The planned pooled analysis was performed to compare patient outcome adding A to CHOP with patients treated with CHOP alone. Primary endpoint within ACT-1 and ACT-2 trial was the 3 years event free survival (EFS), secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). EFS is defined as the time from randomization to disease progression, start of salvage treatment, additional (unplanned) treatments, relapse, or death of any cause. Results: 252 pts were randomized (ACT-1: 136; ACT-2: 116). Five patients received no study treatment; therefore, 247 pts were analyzed (CHOP: 124; A-CHOP: 123). Median age was 61 years. 62% were male. Histologies were 33% AITL, 34% PTCL NOS, 33% other subtypes. In the pooled data set, the two treatment groups were comparable. Infections grade ≥3 occurred more often in patients treated with Alemtuzumab (A-CHOP: 55% [95% CI: 45% - 64%] vs. CHOP 23% [16% - 32%]; p 1 (HR 2.1) and bulky disease (HR 2.1) were the most prominent unfavorable risk factors for EFS. With the sample size of 247 pts the power for detecting the planned EFS difference of 15% was 74%. Conclusion: Adding Alemtuzumab to CHOP increased the rate of CR in PTCL patients, albeit at the costs of higher treatment related toxicity. Addition of Alemtuzumab did not improve EFS, PFS, or OS. Female gender is associated with a significantly better prognosis. This is the largest prospective dataset collected for PTCL. Supported by Federal Ministry of Research BMBF FKZ 01KG0705 and unrestricted research grants by Genzyme-Sanofi and AMGEN Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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

Description: Introduction The prognosis of young DLBCL patients at high risk treated with standard R-CHOP is still rather poor. With the aim to improve outcome of these patients the Italian (Vitolo U et al, Blood, ASH annual Meeting 2012) and German (Schmitz N et al, Lancet Oncology 2012:13,1250) cooperative study groups conducted two randomized phase III studies aimed to compare conventional chemotherapy with intensified chemotherapy with stem cell support both in combination with Rituximab (R). The standard reference arms were R-CHOP14 in the Italian and R-CHOEP14 in the German study. No randomized studies comparing R-CHOP14 and R-CHOEP14 exist. Therefore, FIL and DSHNHL did a joint analysis of the two randomized trials, with the aim to compare the two conventional arms R-CHOP14 and R-CHOEP14. Patients and Methods The primary endpoint of this joint analysis was to compare the progression free survival (PFS) of DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP14 or R-CHOEP14 within the two prospective trials. Inclusion criteria were superimposable for the two studies as follows: age 18-60 years; untreated CD20+ DLBCL or follicular lymphoma grade IIIb; age-adjusted IPI (aa-IPI) score 2 or 3. FIL patients were treated with R-CHOP14 for 8 courses; DSHNHL patients were treated with R-CHOEP-14 for 8 courses. Involved-field radiotherapy (IF-RT) for patients with extranodal sites or with bulky disease was based on the investigator choice in the FIL trial and was mandatory in the DSHNHL study. Central nervous system prophylaxis was done in patients at risk for CNS recurrence. Response criteria used were the same in both studies (Cheson 1999). Results From June 2005 to September 2010 100 patients were enrolled in the FIL study and treated with R-CHOP14. From March 2003 to April 2009, 130 patients were enrolled in the DSHNHL study and treated with R-CHOEP14. All 230 patients were included in the present analysis. Clinical characteristics were: median age 49 (IQR 38; 55); stage III/IV 96%; LDH 〉 normal 93%; ECOG PS 〉1 38%; aa-IPI score 2/3 74/26%; extranodal sites 〉1 41%, bulky disease 50% and bone marrow (BM) involvement 16%. All characteristics were well balanced between patients treated with R-CHOP14 or R-CHOEP14 with the exception of significantly more patients with elevated LDH and bulky disease in the R-CHOEP14 group (98% vs 87%; 59% vs 37%) and more patients with PS 〉1 in the R-CHOP14 group (45% vs 32%). IF-RT consolidation was less frequently used in the R-CHOP14 group (16% vs 74%). Median follow-up times were: 47 (R-CHOP14) and 42 (R-CHOEP14) months. Patients treated with R-CHOP14 had a 3-year PFS of 63% (95% CI:52-71%) compared to 74% of those treated with RCHOEP14 (95% CI:65-81%); p = .177 (Figure 1). In a Cox model for PFS including treatment arm, age, gender, aaIPI, extranodal sites, bulky disease and BM involvement the adjusted HR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.42-1.2) in favor of RCHOEP14, but this difference was not significant (p = .128). The analysis of the role of consolidation IF-RT is ongoing. Conclusions This analysis comparing R-CHOP14 and R-CHOEP14 as standard arms in two prospective trials suggests that RCHOEP14+RT has high activity in young poor-risk DLBCL. To confirm these encouraging findings, a formal joint FIL/ DSHNHL randomized study comparing R-CHOEP+RT vs R-CHOP+RT +/- novel drugs is planned by the two cooperative groups. Disclosures: Vitolo: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau.

Description: Background: 6 cycles CHOP-like chemotherapy plus rituximab (6x R-CHOP) are the standard treatment for young patients with DLBCL. The MInT trial established a subgroup with favourable prognosis as defined as aaIPI=0 and no bulky disease [Pfreundschuh et al., Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 379-391] with a 3-year EFS of 89%, PFS of 95% and OS of 98%. We hypothesized that 4 cycles of CHOP plus 6 applications of rituximab are non-inferior to the standard treatment of 6x R-CHOP in this population. Patients and Methods: 18 to 60 year-old patients, aaIPI =0 without bulky (≥7.5 cm) disease were randomized to receive 6x R-CHOP or 4x R-CHOP+2xR at 21-day cycles. Radiotherapy was not planned to be given except for prophylactic radiotherapy of the contralateral testis in patients with testicular lymphoma. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) with events defined as progressive disease, relapse or death. Assuming a 93% 3-years PFS for the 6x R-CHOP arm, it was planned to tolerate an impairment of 5.5% by reducing the number of courses to 4x R-CHOP+2xR to prove non-inferiority with a power of 80% and an alpha-error of 5% (one-sided). Results: Between 12/2005 and 10/2016, 592 patients were randomized in the international multi-center FLYER trial and 588 patients were evaluable for this final analysis. 295 patients were assigned to receive 6x R-CHOP and 293 were assigned to receive 4x R-CHOP+2xR. There were no relevant differences in demographics (median age: 48 years, 99% aaIPI=0, 1% aaIPI=1, 0.3% bulky disease), protocol adherence and toxicity between the two arms. PFS, EFS and OS after 4x R-CHOP+2xR were as good as after 6x R-CHOP. After 66 months median observation, the 3-year PFS rate of the patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR was 96% vs. 94% of patients receiving 6x R-CHOP (p=0.760). The lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference between treatment arms was 0% and excludes -5.5% demonstrating the non-inferiority. The 3-year EFS was identical (89%) in both treatment arms. The 3-years OS was 99% in patients receiving 4x R-CHOP+2xR and 98% in patients receiving 6x R-CHOP. In a multivariable analysis adjusting for strata (stage and E-involvement), the hazard ratio of 4x R-CHOP+2xR compared to 6x R-CHOP was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.7-1.6; p=0.896) for EFS, 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5-1.6; p=0.797) for PFS, and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.4-1.9; p=0.671) for OS. With respect to relapse rate there was also no significant difference between the two treatment arms. 4% (95% CI 2-7%) of the patients in the 4x R-CHOP+2xR arm relapsed vs. 5% (95% CI 3-8%) of the patients in the 6x R-CHOP arm. 33% of relapses occurred in the first two years after study inclusion but continue to be seen with longer follow-up in both arms. Conclusion: In young patients with favourable prognosis DLBCL outcome after 4x R-CHOP+ 2xR is non-inferior compared to the previous standard 6x R-CHOP. Thus, chemotherapy can be spared without compromising prognosis in this population. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe Figure. Figure. Disclosures Poeschel: Roche: Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Held:BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding. Holte:Roche, Norway: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Borchmann:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Keller:Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Schmidt:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants. Marks:Merck: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Stilgenbauer:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmcyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: 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; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Schmitz:Riemser: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene: Other: Travel grants; Roche: Honoraria. Murawski:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Travel grants.

Description: BACKGROUND: According to the Lugano classification (Cheson et al., JCO 2014, 32: 3059-3067) fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) is the standard for evaluation and staging of aggressive non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). It is a matter of debate whether FDG PET/CT is sufficient to determine bone marrow (BM) involvement. We performed a pooled analysis of data from the PETAL (EudraCT 2006-001641-33) and OPTIMAL〉60 trials (EudraCT 2010-019587-36) as prospective, open-label, randomized, multicenter Phase-III trials to determine whether initial staging with FDG PET/CT would allow non-invasive diagnosis of BM involvement and thus could avoid established but potentially painful and unpleasant BM biopsy (BMB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated within the trials were included if both FDG PET/CT and BMB were performed during initial staging. Only patients with a biopsy-proven, centrally confirmed diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma grade 3b were included. FDG PET/CT images and BM findings were blinded for central review by board certified PET/CT readers. Discordant findings were documented and resolved after unblinding by interdisciplinary discussion using findings of complementary imaging and/or subsequent PET examinations. Based on literature (Berthet et al., J Nucl Med 2013), a newly defined gold standard was used to confirm BM involvement. It includes a positive BMB or a positive FDG PET confirmed by targeted biopsy, complementary CT imaging or targeted MRI, or concurrent disappearance of focal FDG-avid BM lesions with other lymphoma manifestations during immunochemotherapy. RESULTS: Out of 1,976 patients a total of 930 patients met the inclusion criteria. BMB confirmed BM involvement in 85 of 930 patients (9%). According to FDG PET/CT, BM was involved in 185 out of 930 patients (20%) with 36 discordances (4%) between negative initial FDG PET/CT and positive BMB ("false negatives" with respect to previous reference standard, PRS). Discordances between positive initial FDG PET/CT and negative BMB ("false positives" by PRS) occurred in 136 patients (15%). If only BMB is used as in the PRS, the negative predictive value (NPV) of FDG PET/CT was 709/745=95% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 93%-97%) with a sensitivity (Sens) of 58% (95%CI: 46%-68%) and a specificity (Spec) of 84% (95%CI: 81%-86%). After discussion of these cases, 185 out of 221 cases with BM involvement were identified as true positive, resulting in a Sens of 84% for FDG PET/CT (95%CI: 78%-88%). By means of FDG PET/CT 745 cases were negative of which 709 were confirmed as true negatives, resulting in an NPV of 95% (95%CI: 93%-97%). All 185 cases with positive FDG PET/CT were evaluated as true positive for BM involvement in the unblinded synopsis of all findings, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 100% (95%CI: 98%-100%). All 709 negative FDG PET/CT findings were finally confirmed as such, so Spec was 100% (95%CI: 99%-100%). Thus, the prevalence in our total cohort analyzed was 24%, since 221 out of 930 cases had confirmed BM involvement. Diagnostic performance parameters for BMB as compared to the newly defined gold standard were Sens 85/221=38% (95%CI: 32%-45%), Spec 709/709=100% (95%CI: 99%-100%), PPV 85/85=100% (95%CI: 96%-100%) and NPV 709/845=84% (95%CI: 81%-86%), respectively. Differences between the PRS in the diagnosis of BM involvement by only BMB and the newly defined gold standard result mainly from false negative BMB due to sampling errors, which are detected by FDG PET/CT. DISCUSSION: In the majority of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma, routine BMB does not give any additional relevant diagnostic or prognostic information over FDG PET/CT alone and could therefore be omitted. BMB should only be performed if results would have direct therapeutic impact e.g. in patients with limited stage disease and lack of further risk factors according to the international prognostic index (IPI). Disclosures Held: MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Duehrsen:Amgen: Consultancy; University Hospital Essen, Germany: Employment; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; CPT: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; CPT: Honoraria. Hüttmann:University Hospital Essen: Employment; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau.

Description: Introduction For patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell lymphoma immunochemotherapy with R-CHOP (Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, Prednisolone) represents the standard of care with curative intention. For elderly pts a dose-reduced R-mini-CHOP protocol is feasible. No standard of care exists for frail or very old (〉80 yrs) pts not eligible for CHOP-like treatment. Here we present the final results of the prospective DSHNHL-phase-2 trial for old or frail pts receiving Rituximab/Bendamustine (RB) for 1st-line treatment of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Our goal was to determine feasibility, toxicity of the BR regimen in this pt cohort, and to determine which pts groups might potentially benefit from this reduced-intensity approach. Methods The open-label, multicenter, prospective, non-randomized phase-II trial "Subcutaneous Rituximab and Intravenous Bendamustine in very Elderly Patients or Elderly Medically Non Fit Patients ("Slow Go") with Aggressive CD20-positive B-cell Lymphoma" (B-R-ENDA, DSHNHL 2010-1, EudraCT 2010-024004-98) included all pts aged ≥81 yrs or 61-80 yrs and elevated CIRS 〉6, not qualifying for R- CHOP, with histologically confirmed CD20+aggressive lymphoma of any Ann Arbor-stage and IPI score, and ECOG 80 yr cohort), and treatment-associated deaths, frequency of grade 3/4 adverse events and SAEs, adherence to the protocol, complete and partial remission rate, rate of primary progression and relapse, and quality of life assessed by geriatric assessment and EORTC-QLQ-C30 for feasibility. Results: From 2012 to 2016, 68 pts (22 male, 46 female) were recruited in 24 centers into the trial and included into this intent-to-treat analysis (ITT). The median age was 81 yrs with 21% of pts older than 85 yrs. The median CIRS score was 8 and 72% had a CIRS 〉6. The IPI was 〉2 in 59% of pts. The patient population was per protocol divided into two subgroups: pts 61 to 80 yrs old and medically non-fit (29 pts) and pts older than 80 yrs (39 pts). For the 61 to 80 yrs old medically non-fit patients median age was 77 yrs (64-80), median CIRS score was 10 (2-22), IPI was 〉 2 in 76% of pts, 66% of pts had stage 3 or 4 disease, and ECOG was 〉1 in 52% of pts. For the subgroup of pts 〉 80 yrs, median age was 84 yrs (81-95), median CIRS score was 7 (1-17), IPI was 〉 2 in 46% of pts, 51% of pts had stage 3 or 4 disease, and ECOG was 〉1 in 23% of pts. 49% of pts received the complete treatment as planned (61-80 yrs: 38%; 〉80 yrs: 56%). Reasons for early termination of treatment were PD in 15% (17%; 13%) and toxicity in 24% (24%; 23%) of pts. 29% 95% Confidence interval 19-42% of pts (38%; 23%) had grade 3-5 infections. Treatment related mortality was 15% (17%; 13%). Overall response rate (ORR) was 41% (28%; 51%) with 31% CR (10%; 46%). Median observation time was 29 months for EFS, PFS and OS. 2-yrs EFS was 23% (10%; 37%), PFS was 40% (32%; 45%), OS was 42% (37%; 46%). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for IPI factors elevated LDH and ECOG 〉1 constituted the most significant risk factors for poor outcome. Conclusions: We describe a frail patient cohort with a median CIRS score of 8, with 72% pts with a CIRS 〉6, considerable comorbidities and a high percentage of high-risk IPI. The primary efficacy endpoint (2 yr PFS 〉 80 yrs 45%) was met; for R-mini-CHOP, this was reported at 47% (Peyrade et al., Lancet Haemat, 2011). The IPI predicts outcome in the 〉80 yrs cohort reliably. The RB regimen is active even in very elderly and frail pts up to 90 yrs of age. Therefore, in pts not eligible for full- or reduced dose R-CHOP treatment, it represents a tolerable and efficient alternative, albeit with a limited curative potential preferably in IPI low/intermediate-risk pts. Biomarker, comorbidity and QoL data will be analysed subsequently. Disclosures Zettl: Roche: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Korfel:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dreyling:Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Illmer:Roche: Other: travel support. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria. Klapper:Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding. Poeschel:Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel support; Amgen: Other: Travel support; Abbvie: Other: Travel support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Travel support. Truemper:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy.

Description: Background: Nivolumab, a human anti-PD1 antibody has the potential to increase rituximab-mediated effector mechanism, to target the microenviroment and PD-1 in aggressive Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Addition of nivolumab might increase efficacy conventional chemotherapy, which is always combined with rituximab in case of B-cell lymphoma. Therefore, a safety run-in was conducted to determine the tolerability of the combination prior to proceeding with a larger randomized phase 3 study aimed to compare of (R)-GemOx vs. Nivolumab plus (R)-GemOx. Methods: This is an ongoing international, multicenter, randomized, open label study. Key eligibility criteria include: first relapse or progression of an aggressive lymphoma (B-cell as well as peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL)), ineligibility for HDT (defined as 〉65 years of age or older than 18 years if HCT-CI score 〉 2), only one prior chemotherapy regimen including an anthracycline and rituximab (R) in case of B-cell lymphoma. A non-randomized safety run-in phase was performed in 16 pts to assess potential toxicities of Nivolumab in combination with (R)-GemOx. Pts were planned to receive 8 bi-weekly cycles of Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, Oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2, R 375 mg/m2 all given on day 1. Nivolumab 3 mg/kg was given every two weeks for a total of 26 applications or until progression. Importantly, first application of Nivolumab was prior to first application of R. Response was evaluated after 4 and 8 cycles of (R)-Gemox. Safety analysis was performed after the last patient had gone through interim restaging after 4 cycles of (R)-GemOx. Progression/relapse of PTCL was scored as severe adverse event (SAE). Results: Sixteen pts were enrolled in the safety run-in, 10 pts with B cell lymphoma, all DLBCLs and 6 with PTCL. Recruitment was from 12-Jan-2018 until 17-May-2018, snapshot of database on 09-Aug-2018. Median age was 76 years, 9 (56%) pts were male, 8 (50%) had time-to-treatment failure

Description: Background To investigate the impact and underlying mechanisms of vitamin-D-deficiency (VDD) on outcome of elderly (61 to 80 year-old) DLBCL patients. Methods Pretreatment 25-OH-vitamin-D serum levels from 359 patients treated in the prospective multicenter RICOVER-60 trial with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP-14 with and without 8 cycles rituximab and 63 patients in the RICOVER-noRT study treated with 6xCHOP-14 + 8xR were determined determined by LIASION®, a commercially available chemoluminescent immunoassay. Results RICOVER-60 patients with VDD (defined as serum levels ≤8 ng/m l) and treated with rituximab had a 3-year event-free survival of 59% compared to 79% in patients with 〉8 ng/ml; 3-year overall survival was 70% and 82%, respectively. These differences were significant in a multivariable analysis adjusting for IPI risk factors with a hazard ratio of 2.1 [p=0.008] for event-free survival and 1.9 [p=0.040] for overall survival. In patients treated without rituximab 3-year EFS was not significantly different in patients with vitamin-D levels ≤8 and 〉8 ng/ml (HR 1.2; p=0.388). These results were confirmed in an independent validation set of 63 patients treated within the RICOVER-noRT study. Rituximab-mediated cellular toxicity (RMCC) against the CD20+ cell line Daudi as determined by LDH release assay increased significantly (p

Description: Background: Obesity occurs in more than 20% of patients (pts) above 65 years. In solid tumors e.g. breast or colorectal cancer, outcome of obese patients is inferior when compared to normal weight patients. In lymphoma patients data so far are controversial, while recently published data showed that obesity in lymphoma patients was not associated with inferior outcome. Methods: 576 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas included in the RICOVER60 study ( 6 or 8 cycles CHOP-14 + 8 doses of Rituximab) were analysed as training set. 151 patients from the RICOVER-noRTh study were used as validation set. We analysed EFS, PFS and OS with regard to body mass index (BMI ≥ 30 vs. 〈 30) and gender. No significant changes in body weight/BMI occurred during treatment, therefore BMI at cycle 1 was used for analysis. In Cox regression models BMI was adjusted for known prognostic factors. Results: All pts. were 〉 60 years of age (36% 〉 70 years), 46% female., 1% pts. low weight (BMI 70 years, radiotherapy (yes/no) and relative dose. The findings could be validated in an independent validation set of 151 patients from the RICOVER-noRTh study. The HR for EFS/PFS/OS are: all patients - 1.4/1.4/1.7; male patients - 0.7/0.9/1.5; female patients - 2.6/2.0/1.8. Due to small sample size only the HR for female patients for the EFS is significant (p=0.031). Conclusion: Obesity is a risk factor in elderly female pts. with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP with regard to EFS, PFS and OS, adjusted for IPI factors. Sex and weight independently affects rituximab clearance. Females are reported to have slower rituximab clearance with better outcome in the elderly and the rituximab clearance increases with body weight. Therefore worse outcome for obese female patients might be the result of faster rituximab clearance in obese females. Table 1: Multivariate analysis adjusting for IPI risk factors: HR for Obesity (BMI ≥ 30) All pts. male pts. female pts. EFS HR 1.4 [95%CI 1.0-1.9; p= 0.067] HR 1.2 [95%CI 0.7-2.0; p=0.473] HR 1.7 [95%CI 1.0-2.7; p=0.032] PSF HR 1.4 [95%CI 1.0-2.0; p= 0.080] HR 1.2 [95%CI 0.7-2.1; p=0.558] HR 1.9 [95%CI 1.1-3.2; p=0.022] OS HR 1.4 [95%CI 0.9-2.1; p= 0.114] HR 1.0 [95%CI 0.5-2.0; p=0.956] HR 2.0 [95%CI 1.1-3.4; p=0.017] Disclosures Hohloch: Spectrum: Research Funding; Spectrum, Roche: Other: Advisory board. Pfreundschuh:Roche: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim, Celegene, Roche, Spectrum: Other: Advisory board; Amgen, Roche, Spectrum: Research Funding. Schmitz:Roche, Takeda, Gillead, Riemser und ctilifesciences: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Truemper:Sandoz, Celgene, AMGEN, Nordic Nanovector: Other: Advisory board; Amgen, roche, Mundipharma: Research Funding.

Description: Introduction: The R-MegaCHOEP trial showed that dose-escalation of conventional chemotherapy necessitating autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) does not confer a survival benefit for younger patients (pts) with high-risk aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the Rituximab era (Schmitz et al., Lancet Oncology 2012; 13, 1250-1259). To describe efficacy and toxicity over time and document the long-term risks of relapse and secondary malignancy we present the 10-year follow-up of this study. Methods: In the randomized, prospective phase 3 trial R-MegaCHOEP younger pts aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed, high-risk (aaIPI 2-3) aggressive B-cell lymphoma were assigned to 8 cycles of CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubcine, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone) or 4 cycles of dose-escalated high-dose therapy (HDT) necessitating repetitive ASCT both combined with Rituximab. Both arms were stratified according to aaIPI, bulky disease, and center. Primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). All analyses were calculated for the intention-to-treat population. This follow-up report includes molecular data based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC (IHC: 31/92 positive [40-100%], FISH: 14/103 positive), BCL2 (IHC: 65/89 positive [50-100%], FISH: 23/111 positive) and BCL6 (IHC: 52/86 positive [30-100%], FISH: 34/110 positive) and data on cell of origin (COO) classification according to the Lymph2CX assay (GCB: 53/88; ABC: 24/88; unclassified: 11/88). Results: 130 pts had been assigned to R-CHOEP and 132 to R-MegaCHOEP. DLBCL was the most common lymphoma subtype (~80%). 73% of pts scored an aaIPI of 2 and 27% an aaIPI of 3. 60% of pts had an initial lymphoma bulk and in 40% more than 1 extranodal site was involved. After a median observation time of 111 months, EFS at 10 years was 57% (95% CI 47-67%) in the R-CHOEP vs. 51% in the R-MegaCHOEP arm (42-61%) (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.8, p=0.228), overall survival (OS) after 10 years was 72% (63-81%) vs. 66% (57-76%) respectively (p=0.249). With regard to molecular characterization, we were unable to detect a significant benefit for HDT/ASCT in any subgroup analyzed. In total, 16% of pts (30 pts) relapsed after having achieved a complete remission (CR). 23% of all relapses (7 pts) showed an indolent histology (follicular lymphoma grade 1-3a) and 6 of these pts survived long-term. In contrast, of 23 pts (77%) relapsing with aggressive DLBCL or unknown histology 18 pts died due to lymphoma or related therapy. The majority of relapses occurred during the first 3 years after randomization (median time: 22 months) while after 5 years we detected relapses only in 5 pts (3% of all 190 pts prior CR). 11% of pts were initially progressive (28 pts) among whom 71% (20 pts) died rapidly due to lymphoma. Interestingly, the remaining 29% (8 pts) showed a long-term survival after salvage therapy (+/- ASCT); only 1 pt received allogeneic transplantation. The frequency of secondary malignancies was very similar in both treatment arms (9% vs. 8%) despite the very high dose of etoposide (total 4g/m2)in the R-MegaCHOEP arm. We observed 2 cases of AML and 1 case of MDS per arm. In total 70 pts (28%) have died: 30 pts due to lymphoma (12%), 22 pts therapy-related (11 pts due to salvage therapy) (9%), 8 pts of secondary neoplasia (3%), 5 pts due to concomitant disease (2%) and 5 pts for unknown reasons. Conclusions: This 10-year long-term follow-up of the R-MegaCHOEP trial confirms the very encouraging outcome of young high-risk pts following conventional chemotherapy with R-CHOEP. High-dose therapy did not improve outcome in any subgroup analysis including molecular high-risk groups. Relapse rate was generally low. Pts with aggressive relapse showed a very poor long-term outcome while pts with indolent histology at relapse survived long-term. Secondary malignancies occurred; however, they were rare with no excess leukemias/MDS following treatment with very high doses of etoposide and other cytotoxic agents. Supported by Deutsche Krebshilfe. Figure Disclosures Nickelsen: Roche Pharma AG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grants; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hänel:Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: advisory board; Roche: Honoraria. Truemper:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Held:Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board. Viardot:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lenz:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy. Schmitz:Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria.