Search

Background: Information about the long-term tolerability of tafasitamab is still limited. Methods: 5 of 92 patients treated within a phase IIa study of single-agent tafasitamab in relapsed or refractory B NHL were followed for up to five years or longer for long-term tolerability. Results: Treatment was very well tolerated in an outpatient setting with no hospitalizations needed and mild and tolerable adverse events that occurred mostly within the first two years of treatment. Conclusions: Given the excellent tolerability and efficacy of tafasitamab this agent can be used to induce remission in relapsed or refractory lymphoma either alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

The prognosis of elderly patients diagnosed with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is considered to be clearly inferior to that of younger patients. Besides tumor biology and comorbidities, treatment selection due to an assumed reduced tolerability may contribute to this difference. With increasingly more patients diagnosed at advanced age, current treatment selections need to be reviewed carefully. Hence, we analyzed the results of patients above the age of 70 in whom a diagnosis of DLBCL was made. Whereas patients up to 80 were frequently selected for and were able to tolerate standard treatment (86% intended use, 74% completion), patients above the age of 80 years were not only treated more cautiously (67 and 60%, respectively) but did show inferior response to treatment with standard treatment (CR rate for intended R-CHOP use 64% vs. 43%). However, on an individual level, patients receiving and completing standard treatment obtained results that resemble the results of younger patients, irrespective if aged more than 80 and impose superior to prior reports in this age cohort. Median PFS for the entire group of patients was 3.44 years, with 4.83 years for patients below 80 and only 1.09 years for patients above the age of 80. The corresponding figures for OS were 7.38 years (estimated); after 2 years, OS was 81% in the younger cohort in contrast to 68% in patients > 80 years. However, for patients not planned to receive or not tolerating R-CHOP, results remain poor; tailored approaches for these patients are required.

Despite advances in standards of care, the prognosis of relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains poor. In these patients, 50–74% fail to respond to next line therapy,...

International audience

Background The single‐arm DAWN trial (NCT01779791) of ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 20.9% and a median response duration of 19.4 months. This biomarker analysis of the DAWN dataset sought to determine genetic classifiers for prediction of response to ibrutinib treatment. Methods Whole exome sequencing was performed on baseline tumor samples. Potential germline variants were excluded; a custom set of 1216 cancer‐related genes was examined. Responder‐ versus nonresponder‐associated variants were identified using Fisher's exact test. Classifiers with increasing numbers of genes were created using a greedy algorithm that repeatedly selected genes, adding the most nonresponders to the existing “predicted nonresponders” set and were evaluated with 10‐fold cross‐validation. Results Exome data were generated from 88 patient samples and 13,554 somatic mutation variants were inferred. Response data were available for 83 patients (17 responders, 66 nonresponders). Each sample showed 100 to >500 mutated genes, with greater variance across nonresponders. The overall variant pattern was consistent with previous FL studies; 75 genes had mutations in >10% of patients, including genes previously reported as associated with FL. Univariate analysis yielded responder‐associated genes FANCA, HISTH1B, ANXA6, BTG1, and PARP10, highlighting the importance of functions outside of B‐cell receptor signaling, including epigenetic processes, DNA damage repair, cell cycle/proliferation, and cell motility/invasiveness. While nonresponder‐associated genes included well‐known TP53 and CARD11, genetic classifiers developed using nonresponder‐associated genes included ATP6AP1, EP400, ARID1A, SOCS1, and TBL1XR1, suggesting resistance to ibrutinib may be related to broad biological functions connected to epigenetic modification, telomere maintenance, and cancer‐associated signaling pathways (mTOR, JAK/STAT, NF‐κB). Conclusion The results from univariate and genetic classifier analyses provide insights into genes associated with response or resistance to ibrutinib in FL and identify a classifier developed using nonresponder‐associated genes, which warrants further investigation. Trial registration: NCT01779791., Using patient samples from the single‐arm DAWN trial (NCT01779791), we performed univariate and genetic classifier analyses to gain insights into genes associated with response (responders, n = 17) or lack of response (nonresponders, n = 66) to ibrutinib monotherapy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma. Genetic classifiers were developed using nonresponder‐associated genes, and the top five genes associated with no response to ibrutinib included ATP6AP1, EP400, ARID1A, SOCS1, and TBL1XR1, suggesting that resistance to ibrutinib might be related to broad biological functions outside Bruton tyrosine kinase signaling.

Introduction The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) for patients with r/r diffuse LBCL (DLBCL). Methods To characterize the efficacy of Pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed data from 97 patients with r/r LBCL who were treated with Pola in 24 German centers within the national CUP. Clinical baseline and follow-up (FU) data were collected by chart review and summarized descriptively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical factors between groups of patients. Results 97 patients with LBCL (DLBCL n=90, High-grade B-cell lymphoma n=6, Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma n=1) were included as of July 22nd, 2020. 49 patients were treated with Pola as bridging concept to immunotherapies (bridging cohort: chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART) n=39, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) n=9, bispecific antibodies n=1), and 48 patients were treated with Pola in palliative intention (palliative cohort). Within the bridging cohort the median age was 61 years (range: 22-82). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-6). 84% (41/49 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line, and 31% had failed an autologous stem cell transplantation. Notably, 14% and 10% of patients had failed prior CART and alloSCT, respectively, and were planned for the alternate cellular immunotherapy. Based on an individual decision, patients were treated with Pola-Rituximab (Pola-R, n=20), Pola-chemotherapy (Pola-chemo, BR n=25; R-CHP n=1) or Pola-monotherapy (Pola-mono, n=3). With a median of 2 Pola cycles (range 1-6), overall response rate (ORR) of all evaluable patients was 33% (15/46 patients) including patients with complete response (CR n=1), partial response (PR n=9) and clinical response (n=5). Although not significant, ORR tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R/Pola-mono (ORR: 42% versus 20%, Fishers test p=0.1). 11 of these 15 responders (24% of the entire bridging cohort) proceeded to CART or alloSCT, while 4 responders (8% of entire bridging cohort) experienced fast progression after their initial response and were referred to best supportive care. 15 of 31 non-responders (33% of entire bridging cohort) underwent immunotherapy with either stable disease (n=6), mixed response (n=2), or progression on Pola (n=7). The remaining 16 patients (35% of entire bridging cohort) were all refractory to Pola and either received alternative salvage treatments which enabled 8 further patients to proceed to the intended immunotherapy, or best supportive care. Taking the effects of CART or alloSCT into account, median OS from initiation of Pola treatment was 8.2 months (median FU 7.2 months, Fig. 1A). The palliative cohort tended to be older than the bridging cohort with a median age of 73.5 years (range: 37-86, p Conclusion Pola permits effective bridging to CART and alloSCT in r/r LBCL. In the palliative setting, Pola represents an effective salvage option for patients with transplantation-ineligible r/r LBCL. Compared to the approval study, the inferior outcome of the patients of this real-world analysis might be explained by their more advanced disease course. Disclosures Duell: Morphosys: Research Funding. Kerkhoff:BMS: Honoraria. Leng:Roche: Other: lecture fee; Celgene: Other: traveling expenses and congress attendance fee. Holtick:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Mayer:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hüttmann:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy. Brunnberg:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Bullinger:Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mueller-Tidow:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung: Research Funding; Jose-Carreras-Siftung: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag Gmbh: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Research Funding. Lenz:Verastem: Research Funding; AQUINOX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dreger:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dietrich:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

This phase 3 trial compared tandem autologous stem cell transplantation (autoSCT) versus autoSCT followed by reduced-intensity conditioning allogeneic stem cell transplantation (auto/alloSCT) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) with deletion of (del) chromosome 13q (del13q). The availability/absence of a human leukocyte antigen-matched-related or matched-unrelated donor (MUD) determined the nature of the second SCT. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population (n = 199). Auto/alloSCT was performed in 126 patients; 74 received MUD allografts. After 91 months median follow-up, median PFS with auto/allo versus tandem autoSCT was 34.5 versus 21.8 months (P = 0.003; adjusted hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.36–0.84). Median overall survival (OS) was 70.2 versus 71.8 months (P = 0.856). Two-year non-relapse mortality with auto/allo versus tandem autoSCT was 14.3% versus 4.1% (P = 0.008). In patients harboring both del13q and del17p, median PFS and OS were 37.5 and 61.5 months with auto/allo (n = 19) versus 6.1 and 23.4 months with tandem autoSCT (n = 6) (P = 0.0002 and 0.032). Our findings suggest that auto/alloSCT significantly extends PFS versus tandem autoSCT in del13q MM, and indicate some survival benefit for first-line alloSCT in high-risk MM.

Context Tafasitamab+LEN, a chemotherapy-free, novel treatment for R/R DLBCL, demonstrated efficacy in ASCT-ineligible patients in the single-arm Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). Objective To compare outcomes in patients treated with tafasitamab+LEN in the L-MIND study with matched patient populations treated with commonly administered NCCN-/ESMO-recommended therapies for non-transplant-eligible patients with R/R DLBCL in routine clinical practice. Design RE-MIND2 (NCT04150328) is an observational, retrospective cohort study. The L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN cohort was matched with RE-MIND2 patients using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching balanced for nine patient and disease baseline characteristics: age ( 9 /L), anemia (cut-off upper limit of normal). Setting Academic, public, and private hospitals in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. Patients Age: ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed DLBCL. Prior systemic therapy for DLBCL: ≥1, including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy. Interventions Data are presented for tafasitamab+LEN vs all (pooled) systemic therapies, tafasitamab+LEN vs bendamustine+rituximab (BR), and tafasitamab+LEN vs rituximab+gemcitabine+oxaliplatin (R-GemOx). Main Outcome Measures The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, complete response rate, progression-free survival, event-free survival, duration of response, and time to next treatment. Results In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 centers. For the comparative analysis, 76 patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN study were included in the full analysis set. Strictly matched pairs of patients (standardized mean difference ≤0.2) included: tafasitamab+LEN vs pooled therapies, n=76 pairs; tafasitamab+LEN vs BR, n=75 pairs; and tafasitamab+LEN vs R-GemOx, n=74 pairs. Tafasitamab+LEN was associated with longer OS compared with pooled therapies (HR: 0.55; p=0.0076), BR (HR: 0.42; p Conclusions Results of this analysis suggest that tafasitamab+LEN has improved OS vs commonly used regimens. Funding This study was funded by MorphoSys AG.

Purpose Informed consent is required prior to any medical procedure. In the context of cancer treatment, special efforts are needed to inform cancer patients properly about treatment, potential sequelae and alternative therapies. Little is known about the effectiveness of current informed consent strategies and patients’ individual satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity in terms of age, education, sex and other factors, detailed understanding of patients’ comprehension and perception is the basis for further optimization of the informed consent process, which was the aim of the current investigation. Methods Patients with a new cancer diagnosis and recent informed consent were asked to complete a questionnaire about satisfaction, comprehension, time management, physician–patient relationship and other items of the informed consent process. Patients were followed for 6 months and invited to complete a follow-up questionnaire. Results In total, 89 patients completed the first questionnaire and 52 the follow-up questionnaire. Subjective understanding was assumed high, however, this did not correlate with objective understanding. Age and education were identified as influencing factors for comprehension. 85% of the patients were satisfied with the information provided. A major gap was the information on alternative therapies. Moreover, not all patients perceived the consent dialog as such, and particularly the individual treatment intention partially remained unclear for some patients. Conclusions To ensure that informed consent is based on solid understanding, informed consenting must be patient-centered and consider the individual expectations, needs and abilities of cancer patients. Further studies are required to develop tailored informed consent strategies.

In this phase I/II study, we explored the combination of Temsirolimus with Bendamustine and Rituximab (BeRT) in patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Patients with 1 to 3 previous therapies received Bendamustine (90 mg/m2, day 1 + 2) and Rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1) with Temsirolimus in doses from 25 to 75 mg in phase I and 50 mg Temsirolimus in phase II, added on day 1, 8, 15 of a 28 days cycle. The primary endpoint of the phase II was ORR at the end of treatment. Overall, 39 (29 MCL, 10 FL) patients were included. Median age was 71 years and median pretreatment number was 2. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic adverse events were rare and included hyperglycemia in 3 patients (7%) and angioedema in 2 patients (5%). Infectious complications grade 3/4 were observed in 9 patients (23%). Hematologic grade 3/4 events included leukopenia in 22 (56%), neutropenia in 18 (46%), lymphopenia in 16 (41%) and thrombocytopenia in 14 patients (36%). An objective response (best response) was observed in 33/39 patients (89%; 24 MCL (89%) and 9 FL (90%)), including 14 CR (38%; 12 MCL (36%) and 2 FL (20%)). Median PFS is 1.5y for MCL and 1.82 years for FL, and median OS has not been reached for either entity. This data demonstrates promising efficacy of Temsirolimus in r/r MCL and FL with acceptable toxicity. The BeRT regimen may be used as a treatment option for both entities.

Background Rituximab is a well-established component of treatment regimens for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Rituximab binds the CD20 antigen on the surface of B lymphocytes, causing an enhanced clearance of malignant and benign B cells. Thus, rituximab leads to depletion of normal B lymphocytes as well, which can cause substantial immunodeficiency. Ibrutinib inhibits the Bruton tyrosine kinase and thereby B-cell activity. It is used for the treatment of different B-lymphocyte malignancies, such as mantle cell lymphoma. Recently, the combination of both drugs has been tested in various clinical scenarios. Case presentation We present a case of disseminated enterovirus infection resulting from combined rituximab and ibrutinib maintenance treatment in a 57-year-old Caucasian patient. with mantle cell lymphoma. Initially presenting with myositis symptoms, further diagnostic investigation revealed myocarditis, enteritis, myeloencephalitis, and hepatitis. These organ manifestations led to potentially life-threatening complications such as rhabdomyolysis, delirium, and heart rhythm disturbances. After treatment with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins, virus clearance was achieved and organ functions could be restored. Conclusions This case emphasizes the risk of combined therapy with rituximab/ibrutinib for severe immune-related side effects with the necessity of continuous patient monitoring. High-dose intravenous therapy should be considered as treatment for severe enterovirus infection. In severe enterovirus infections, we recommend subtyping for the development of efficient preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Summary Background In the LYM-3002 study, the efficacy and safety of frontline bortezomib plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (VR-CAP) and rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) were compared in transplant-ineligible patients with untreated, newly diagnosed, mantle cell lymphoma. We report the final overall survival and safety outcomes for patients in the long-term follow-up phase after the primary progression-free-survival endpoint was met. Methods LYM-3002 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done at 128 clinical centres in 28 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Adult patients with confirmed stage II–IV previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or less, who were ineligible for bone marrow transplantation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive six or eight 21-day cycles of VR-CAP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2, plus oral prednisone 100 mg/m2) or R-CHOP (intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 [2 mg maximum], rituximab 375 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, and doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, plus oral prednisone 100 mg/m2). Randomisation was done according to a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor; permuted blocks central randomisation was used (block size of 4), and was stratified by International Prognostic Index score and disease stage at diagnosis. The primary endpoint of this final analysis was overall survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00722137 , and is closed to new participants with follow-up completed. Findings Between May 22, 2008, and Dec 5, 2011, 487 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. 268 patients (140 in the VR-CAP group and 128 in the R-CHOP group) were included in the follow-up analysis, which included patients with data available after the primary analysis clinical cutoff date of Dec 2, 2013. After median follow-up of 82·0 months (IQR 74·1–94·2), median overall survival was significantly longer in the VR-CAP group than in the R-CHOP group (90·7 months [95% CI 71·4 to not estimable] vs 55·7 months [47·2 to 68·9]; hazard ratio 0·66 [95% CI 0·51–0·85]; p=0·001). Three new adverse events were reported since the primary analysis cutoff (one each of grade 4 lung adenocarcinoma and grade 4 gastric cancer in the VR-CAP group, and one case of grade 2 pneumonia in the R-CHOP group). 103 (42%) of 243 patients in the VR-CAP group, and 138 (57%) of 244 in the R-CHOP group died; the most common cause of death was progressive disease. Interpretations Compared with R-CHOP, VR-CAP was associated with significantly longer survival, and had a manageable and expected safety profile. Our results support further assessment of VR-CAP in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma. Funding Janssen Research & Development.

Background Several therapies are recommended by NCCN/ESMO guidelines for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the single-arm, Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085), the chemotherapy-free regimen tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy for this patient population. In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared patient outcomes from L-MIND with matched patient populations treated with NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies for ASCT-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL. Methods Data were retrospectively collected between 1 April and 13 November 2020 from academic and public hospitals, as well as private practices in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. To ensure consistency with L-MIND I/E criteria, patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy) were enrolled. For the main analysis, patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab + LEN cohort were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, balanced for six baseline characteristics: age ( A sensitivity analysis was performed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method calculating the average effect of the treatment on the treated, to generate balanced cohorts based on nine baseline characteristics: age, refractoriness to last line of therapy, number of previous lines of therapy, history of primary refractoriness, prior ASCT, Ann Arbor Stage (I/II vs III/IV), elevated LDH (yes vs no), neutropenia (yes vs no), and anemia (yes vs no). Additional sensitivity analyses accounting for missing baseline characteristics using multiple imputation technique were performed. Data are presented for tafasitamab + LEN versus polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate, progression-free survival and duration of response. Results Of 3,454 patients enrolled from 200 sites, 106, 106, and 149 patients were treated with pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, respectively. For the comparative analysis, matched patient pairs were created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching with a caliper. Matched pairs consisted of: tafasitamab + LEN vs pola-BR, n=24 pairs; vs R2, n=33 pairs; and vs CAR-T, n=37 pairs. A significant OS benefit was associated with tafasitamab + LEN compared to pola-BR (HR: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.96; p=0.038) and R2 (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.014) (Figure 1A-B). There was no significant difference in OS benefit between tafasitamab + LEN and CAR-T (HR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.47-1.91; p=0.891) (Figure 1C). ORR was 62.5% (15/24) for tafasitamab + LEN vs 58.3% (14/24) for pola-BR (p=1.000), 63.6% (21/33) vs 30.3% (10/33) for R2 (p=0.013), and 59.5% (22/37) vs 75.7% (28/37) for CAR-T (p=0.214). Improved outcomes were also observed with tafasitamab + LEN for other secondary endpoints (Table 1). Results are consistent with those obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The results of this retrospective cohort analysis suggest that the novel tafasitamab + LEN combination may significantly improve health outcomes, with a prolonged survival benefit for ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients, relative to NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Tafasitamab + LEN improved survival outcomes compared with pola-BR and R2 in closely matched patient populations. Comparable outcomes were observed for tafasitamab + LEN vs CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may be clinically relevant in the context of emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. While this study design does not replace randomized data, it remains more rigorous than inter-trial comparison. The limitations of comparing clinical trial and matched retrospective real-world data will be discussed. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Fleury: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Kite-Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Other: conference and advisory role. Peters: AbbVie, Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: 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, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy. Kim: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zinzani: BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trotman: Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sabatelli: Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Waltl: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Winderlich: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambarkhane: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Kurukulasuriya: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Cordoba: Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADCTherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hess: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles: Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.

Ibrutinib is highly active in treating mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), an aggressive B-cell lymphoma. We pooled data from three ibrutinib studies to explore the impact of baseline patient characteristics on treatment response. Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (n = 370) treated with ibrutinib had an objective response rate (ORR) of 66% (20% complete response; 46% partial response); median duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 18.6, 12.8 and 25.0 months, respectively. Univariate analyses showed patients with one versus >one prior line of therapy had longer OS. Multivariate analyses identified that one prior line of therapy affected PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, simplified MCL international prognostic index (sMIPI) score, bulky disease, and blastoid histology affected OS and PFS. Patients with blastoid versus non-blastoid histology had similar time to best response, but lower ORR, DOR, PFS and OS. OS and PFS were longer in patients with better sMIPI, patients with ECOG performance status 0–1, non-bulky disease and non-blastoid histology. Additionally, the proportion of patients with poor prognostic factors increased with increasing lines of therapy. Together, results suggest that patient outcomes following treatment failure with ibrutinib are related to the natural biological evolution of the disease.

Background: Allogeneic (allo) following autologous (auto) stem-cell transplantation (SCT) has yielded conflicting results in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). In alloSCT, information is lacking regarding the impact of cytogenetic features except chromosome 13q deletion (del13q). Methods: This phase 3 trial compared tandem autoSCT versus autoSCT followed by reduced-intensity conditioning alloSCT (auto/alloSCT) in del13q MM. The availability/absence of a human leukocyte antigen-matched related or matched unrelated donor (MUD) determined the nature of the second SCT. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population (n=199). Findings: Auto/alloSCT was performed in 126 patients; 74 received MUD allografts. After 91 months' median follow-up (range 2-143 months), median PFS with auto/allo versus tandem autoSCT was 34·5 versus 21.8 months (p=0·003; adjusted hazard ratio 0·55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0·36-0·84). Median overall survival (OS) was 70.2 versus 71.8 months (p=0.856). Two-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) with auto/allo versus tandem autoSCT was 14·3% versus 4·1% (p=0·008). In patients harbouring both del13q and deletion of chromosome 17p, median PFS and OS were 37·5 and 61·5 months with auto/allo (n=19) versus 6·1 and 23·4 months with tandem autoSCT (n=6) (p=0·0002 and 0·032). Interpretation: Auto/alloSCT significantly extends PFS versus tandem autoSCT in patients with del13q MM. We believe this to be the first MM study demonstrating that MUD alloSCT can be performed with reasonable NRM. Furthermore, our data suggest some survival benefit for first-line alloSCT in high-risk MM. Funding: The trial was sponsored by Wurzburg University, Wurzburg, Germany. Declaration of Interest: MH reports personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Takeda. GH reports personal fees from Janssen, Roche, AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, MorphoSys, and Celgene; and grants from Roche, Pfizer, and Celgene. SM reports non-financial support from EBMT/EHA, IACH, Celgene, Miltenyi, KIADIS, Bellicum, DGHO, Jazz Pharma, and ISCT; and personal fees from Celgene, Miltenyi, KIADIS, Bellicum, and Jazz Pharma. GM reports personal fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck-Serono; and non-financial support from Janssen-Cilag. LK reports honoraria for presentation at “MedIpdate” (OnkoUpdate, IntemistenUpdate, PraxisUpdate) and at “Medizin Aktuell”. Amgen and Celgene are sponsors of the “Biannual International Stem Cell Conference, Tubingen, Germany): Scientific chairman: LK. HE reports grants, personal fees, and other (advisory board) from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, BristolMyers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethical Approval: The trial protocol was approved by the Wurzburg University ethics committee. All patients provided written informed consent prior to trial entry, and all procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonisation Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.

Background: Preservation of kidney function in newly diagnosed (ND) multiple myeloma (MM) helps to prevent excess toxicity. Patients (pts) from two prospective trials were analyzed, provided postinduction (PInd) restaging was performed. Pts received three cycles with bortezomib (btz), cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (dex, VCD) or btz, lenalidomide (len), and dex (VRd) or len, adriamycin, and dex (RAD). The minimum required estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was &gt, 30 mL/min. We analyzed the percent change of the renal function using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)-defined categories. Results: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients were eligible. Three hundred and fifty-six received VCD, 214 VRd, and 202 RAD. VCD patients had the best baseline eGFR. The proportion of pts with eGFR &lt, 45 mL/min decreased from 7.3% at baseline to 1.9% PInd (p &lt, 0.0001). Thirty-seven point one percent of VCD versus 49% of VRd patients had a decrease of GFR (p = 0.0872). IMWG-defined “renal complete response (CRrenal)” was achieved in 17/25 (68%) pts after VCD, 12/19 (63%) after RAD, and 14/27 (52%) after VRd (p = 0.4747). Conclusions: Analyzing a large and representative newly diagnosed myeloma (NDMM) group, we found no difference in CRrenal that occurred independently from the myeloma response across the three regimens. A trend towards deterioration of the renal function with VRd versus VCD may be explained by a better pretreatment “renal fitness” in the latter group.

© 2018 The Authors., [Background]: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. [Patients and Methods]: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months., [Results]: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide., [Conclusion]: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits., Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Initial results from the ongoing GALLIUM trial have shown that patients with follicular lymphoma have a longer progression-free survival after first-line immunochemotherapy with obinutuzumab than with rituximab. The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of PET-CT responses after first-line immunochemotherapy in the GALLIUM study.METHODS: GALLIUM is an open-label, parallel-group randomised, phase 3 trial, which recruited previously untreated patients with CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3a; disease stage III/IV, or stage II with largest tumour diameter ≥7 cm) who were aged 18 years or older and met the criteria for needing treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous administration of obinutuzumab (1000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of subsequent cycles) or rituximab (375 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle), in six 21-day cycles with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CHOP; oral administration) followed by two 21-day cycles of antibody alone, or eight 21-day cycles cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CVP; oral administration), or six 28-day cycles with bendamustine, followed by maintenance antibody every 2 months for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint of the trial, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, has been reported previously. This secondary analysis reports PET and CT-based responses at end-of-induction therapy and explains their relation with progression-free and overall survival outcomes in patients with available scans. As per protocol, during the trial, PET scans (mandatory in the first 170 patients enrolled at sites with available PET facilities, and optional thereafter), acquired at baseline and end of induction (PET population), were assessed prospectively by investigators and an independent review committee (IRC) applying International Harmonisation Project (IHP) 2007 response criteria, and retrospectively by the IRC only applying current Lugano 2014 response criteria. IRC members (but not study investigators) were masked to treatment and clinical outcome when assessing response. The landmark analyses excluded patients who died or progressed (contrast enhanced CT-based assessment of progressive disease, or started next anti-lymphoma treatment) before or at end of induction. GALLIUM is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01332968.FINDINGS: 1202 patients were enrolled in GALLIUM between July 6, 2011, and Feb 4, 2014, of whom 595 were included in the PET population; 533 (IHP 2007; prospective analysis), and 508 (Lugano 2014; retrospective analysis) were analysed for progression-free survival (landmark analysis). At end of induction, 390 of 595 patients (65·5% [95% CI 61·6-69·4]) achieved PET complete response according to IHP 2007 criteria, and 450 (75·6% [95% CI 72·0-79·0]) obtained PET complete metabolic response according to Lugano 2014 criteria. With a median of 43·3 months of observation (IQR 36·2-51·8), 2·5-year progression-free survival from end of induction was 87·8% (95% CI 83·9-90·8) in PET complete responders and 72·0% (63·1-79·0) in non-complete responders according to IRC-assessed IHP 2007 criteria (hazard ratio [HR] 0·4, 95% CI 0·3-0·6, pINTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that PET is a better imaging modality than contrast-enhanced CT for response assessment after first-line immunochemotherapy in patients with follicular lymphoma. PET assessment according to Lugano 2014 response criteria provides a platform for investigation of response-adapted therapeutic approaches. Additional supportive data are welcomed.FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Temsirolimus 175 mg once-weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 75 mg once-weekly intravenously dosed (175/75 mg) is approved in the European Union for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). A phase IV study explored whether similar efficacy, but improved safety could be achieved with 75 mg without 175 mg loading doses (ClinicaTrials.gov: NCT01180049). Patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were randomized to once-weekly temsirolimus 175/75 mg (n = 47) or 75 mg (n = 42). Treatment continued until objective disease progression. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Median PFS was 4.3 versus 4.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.731; 80% confidence interval [CI], 0.520-1.027), and median OS 18.7 versus 11.0 months (HR 0.681; 80% CI, 0.472-0.982) with 175/75 mg versus 75 mg. There were fewer patients with serious AEs, dose reduction, or death with 175/75 mg (57.4%, 48.9%, and 48.9%) versus 75 mg (73.8%, 64.3%, and 65.1%). Temsirolimus 175/75 mg remains the preferred dosing regimen for relapsed/refractory MCL.

Purpose The Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has demonstrated clinical activity in B-cell malignancies. The DAWN study assessed the efficacy and safety of single-agent ibrutinib in chemoimmunotherapy relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. Methods DAWN was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study of ibrutinib in patients with FL with two or more prior lines of therapy. Patients received ibrutinib 560 mg daily until progressive disease/unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was independent review committee–assessed overall response rate (ORR; complete response plus partial response). Exploratory analyses of T-cell subsets in peripheral blood (baseline/cycle 3) and cytokines/chemokines (baseline/cycle 2) were performed for available samples. Results Between March 2013 and May 2016, 110 patients with a median of three prior lines of therapy were enrolled. At median follow-up of 27.7 months, ORR was 20.9% (95% CI, 13.7% to 29.7%, which did not meet the 18% lower-bound threshold for the primary end point). Twelve patients achieved a complete response (11%; 95% CI, 5.8% to 18.3%). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (range, 1 to ≥ 33 months), with a median progression-free survival of 4.6 months and a 30-month overall survival of 61% (95% CI, 0.51% to 0.70%). Lymphoma symptoms resolved in 67%. Seven of 32 patients who experienced initial radiologic progression responded upon continuing therapy (pseudoprogression). The most common adverse events were diarrhea, fatigue, cough, and muscle spasms; 48.2% of patients reported serious adverse events. In patients who experienced a response, regulatory T cells were downregulated at C3D1 ( P = .02), and Th1-promoting (antitumor) cytokines interferon-γ and interleukin-12 increased ( P ≤ .035). Conclusion With an ORR of 20.9%, ibrutinib failed to meet its primary efficacy end point in chemoimmunotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory FL, although responses were durable and associated with a reduction in regulatory T cells and increases in proinflammatory cytokines.

This phase 1/2 study was the first to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6-specific inhibitor palbociclib (PD-0332991) in sequential combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. The recommended phase 2 dose was palbociclib 100 mg orally once daily on days 1-12 of a 21-day cycle with bortezomib 1.0 mg/m2 (intravenous) and dexamethasone 20 mg (orally 30 min pre-bortezomib dosing) on days 8 and 11 (early G1 arrest) and days 15 and 18 (cell cycle resumed). Dose-limiting toxicities were primarily cytopenias; most other treatment-related adverse events were grade≤3. At a bortezomib dose lower than that in other combination therapy studies, antitumor activity was observed (phase 1). In phase 2, objective responses were achieved in 5 (20%) patients; 11 (44%) achieved stable disease. Biomarker and pharmacodynamic assessments demonstrated that palbociclib inhibited CDK4/6 and the cell cycle initially in most patients.

In this phase I/II study, we explored the combination of Temsirolimus with Bendamustine and Rituximab (BeRT) in patients with r/r follicular lymphoma (FL) or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Patients with 1-3 prior therapies received Bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), day 1+2) and Rituximab (375 mg/m(2), day 1) with Temsirolimus in doses from 25 to 75 mg added on day 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle. Fifteen (11 MCL, 4 FL) patients were included in the phase I. Median age was 73 years and median pretreatment number was 2. No formal dose-limiting toxicity was observed. Dominant non-hematological side effects were fatigue in 11 (73%), nausea in 9 (60%), mucositis in 7 (47%) and vomiting in 6 patients (40%). Cough, diarrhea, pyrexia and rash were observed in five patients (33%) each. Grade 3/4 events included leukopenia in 6 (40%), neutropenia in 4 (27%) and thrombocytopenia in 2 patients (13%). An objective response was observed in 14/15 patients (93%), including 5 complete response (33%; all MCL). After a median follow-up of 19 months, 67% of patients are without signs of progression. Temsirolimus can be safely added to BR with promising preliminary activity. Recruitment in phase II is ongoing.

With the introduction of novel treatments paradigms to if or when to use transplantation strategies for patients with follicular lymphoma have changed substantially. Autologous transplantation has been intensively evaluated as consolidation after first induction treatment with positive effects, however the introduction of Rituximab led to comparable improvements and HDT has been moved to relapse treatment. In this indication HDT was frequently use already at first relapse, but now is dominantly used in patients with a highrisk profile, e.g. failure of response, early or multiply relapse and/or signs of transformation. The ideal place for allogeneic transplantation is even harder to define, as the curative potential might be outweighed by the substantial side effect profile and the indication must always be discussed in the light of available alternatives. In consequence, transplantation strategies remain an important therapeutic instrument for patients with FL, however timing within the treatment course has to be defined individually.

As patients continue to die from malignant lymphoma, novel treatment options continue to be warranted. To successfully grow and spread, tumor cells need to escape the immune system; therefore, the augmentation or restoration of immune effectors against the malignant cell could be of great value, as shown, e.g., for allogeneic transplantation. A deepened understanding of the regulation of activation and inhibition of the T cell-based effector mechanisms has led to the development of drugs that are able to modify specific checkpoints of this system and thereby raise an immune response against tumor cells. With dramatic responses observed in Hodgkin's disease (HD), interest has risen to explore these drugs in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Available data underline the potential of checkpoint inhibitors in a variety of lymphoma entities, such as primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma (PMBCL) or central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma, and there is hope that a significant proportion of patients will finally benefit. However, intensive efforts are needed to develop optimal screening tools, combinations, and sequences to explore the full potential of these new classes of therapeutic agents.

Radiotherapy (RT) in combination with chemoimmunotherapy is highly efficient in the treatment of diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy of the treatment volume and the dose concept of involved-site RT (ISRT). We identified 60 histologically confirmed stage I–IV DLBCL patients treated with multimodal cytotoxic chemoimmunotherapy and followed by consolidative ISRT from 2005–2015. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Univariate analyses were performed by log-rank test and Mann–Whitney U‑test. After initial chemoimmunotherapy (mostly R‑CHOP; rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), 19 (36%) patients achieved complete response (CR), 34 (64%) partial response (PR) or less. Excluded were 7 (12%) patients with progressive disease after chemoimmunotherapy. All patients underwent ISRT with a dose of 40 Gy. After a median follow-up of 44 months, 79% of the patients remained disease free, while 21% presented with failure, progressive systemic disease, or death. All patients who achieved CR after chemoimmunotherapy remained in CR. Of the patients achieving PR after chemotherapy only 2 failed at the initial site within the ISRT volume. No marginal relapse was observed. Ann Arbor clinical stage I/II showed significantly improved PFS compared to stage III/IV (93% vs 65%; p ≤ 0.021). International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of 0 or 1 compared to 2–5 has been associated with significantly increased PFS (100% vs 70%; p ≤ 0.031). Postchemoimmunotherapy status of CR compared to PR was associated with significantly increased PFS (100% vs 68%; p ≤ 0.004) and OS (100% vs 82%; p ≤ 0.026). Only 3 of 53 patients developed grade II late side effects, whereas grade III or IV side effects have not been observed. These data suggest that a reduction of the RT treatment volume from involved-field (IF) to involved-site (IS) is sufficient because no marginal failures occurred. The concept of IS will likely reduce the risk for late sequelae of RT.

Summary We assessed the safety and efficacy of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) induction therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma patients. A total of 414 patients received three 21-day cycles of VCD prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Most common grade ≥3 adverse events were leucopenia (31·4%) and thrombocytopenia (6·8%). The overall response rate (ORR) by investigator-based assessment was 85·4%. Most patients (74%) underwent successful central laboratory-based molecular cytogenetic analysis. No clinically relevant differences in ORR post-induction were seen between patients with or without high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (86·2% vs. 84·3%). Further follow-up data are available for 113 patients receiving ASCT who were included in a prospective consolidation trial (median follow-up, 55·5 months); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 35·3 months and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. In patients with high-risk versus standard-risk cytogenetics, median PFS was 19·9 vs. 43·6 months (P

International audience; Patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) usually respond to initial combination chemotherapy, but the disease inevitably relapses and often follows an aggressive course. Here, clinical study results published since 2008 for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL were reviewed to compare available evidence for treatment guidance. Most trials identified were non-randomized, phase II studies performed at a limited number of sites, and many evaluated MCL as one of multiple non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes. Additional randomized, comparative trials are needed. Treatment selection generally depends on patient need, age and fitness, time of relapse, and line of therapy. Combination regimens typically produce higher response rates than single agents, and adding rituximab generally improves outcomes. The inclusion of ibrutinib, lenalidomide, temsirolimus, and bortezomib, represents an important advance for patients ineligible for, unable to tolerate, or failing high-intensity combination chemotherapy. A high need for effective treatments in relapsed/refractory MCL remains, particularly for elderly and frail patients.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, aggressive, incurable B-cell malignancy. Ibrutinib has been shown to be highly active for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The RAY trial (MCL3001) was a phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study that compared ibrutinib with temsirolimus in patients with R/R MCL. Active disease is frequently associated with impaired functional status and reduced well-being. Therefore, the current study employed two patient-reported outcome instruments, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and the EQ-5D-5L, to assess symptoms, well-being, health status, and health-related quality of life of patients on treatment within the RAY trial. We found that patients on ibrutinib had substantial improvement in FACT-Lym subscale and total scores, and had improvement in EQ-5D-5L utility and VAS scores compared with temsirolimus patients, indicating a superior well-being. These improvements in well-being correlated with clinical response, indicating that better health-related quality of life was associated with decreased disease burden.

Background: CD19 is broadly and homogeneously expressed across different B-cell malignancies and represents an attractive target antigen in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Tafasitamab (MOR208) is an Fc-enhanced, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody. This ongoing study is investigating the single agent antitumor activity in adult patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) NHL who had received at least one prior rituximab-containing therapy. Patients and Methods: The study enrolled 92 r/r NHL patients: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n=35), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n=12), follicular lymphoma (FL; n=34), or other indolent NHL (iNHL; n=11). The median number of prior systemic therapies was three (range 1-15) for the entire patient population. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) based on the revised International Working Group Response Criteria (Cheson et al., et al. J Clin Oncol 2007). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the time-to-response, duration of response (DoR), time to progression and progression-free survival (PFS), and to establish the safety and tolerability of tafasitamab. Patients received up to three 28-day cycles with weekly infusions of 12 mg/kg body weight of tafasitamab. Premedication, including antipyretics, histamine H1 receptor blockers and glucocorticosteroids, was administered for the first three infusions. Patients with ongoing at least partial remission (PR) at the end of Cycle 3 received further tafasitamab treatment until disease progression, either monthly or every second week. Results: The investigator-assessed best response (intent-to-treat analysis) in the different subgroups at cut-off date (28 Sep 2018) is shown in Table 1. Five patients in complete remission (CR) (one DLBCL, two FL, two other iNHL) were ongoing and still on tafasitamab treatment at the cut-off date. These patients were on treatment for more than 4 years. The median DoR was 20.1 months in DLBCL and 24 months in FL (Table 2). The median PFS was 2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-13.2 months) and 6.6 months (95% CI 5.3-20.5 months) in DLBCL and FL, respectively. The PFS rate at 12 months was 34.3% and 39.2% for DLBCL and FL, respectively (Table 2). Similar PFS was observed in rituximab-refractory as well as non-refractory patients. Patients with a peripheral blood natural killer (NK) cell count >100 cells/µL at baseline had a median PFS of 4.2 months (DLBCL) or 8.8 months (FL/iNHL), as compared with patients who had Conclusion: Tafasitamab monotherapy until progression resulted in durable responses and was well tolerated in patients with both aggressive and indolent NHL subtypes. Disclosures Jurczak: Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Zinzani:Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hess:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees; Celgene: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; CTI: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gaidano:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Provencio:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pierre Fabre: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodation and expenses, Speakers Bureau. Nagy:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Robak:Morphosys AG: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant; Roche: Consultancy, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; UCB: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buske:Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celltrion: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hexal: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ambarkhane:MorphoSys: Employment. Brugger:MorphoSys: Employment; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Dirnberger-Hertweck:MorphoSys: Employment. Tillmanns:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Weirather:MorphoSys: Employment.

Introduction In MCL, progression-free survival (PFS) generally declines with each successive line of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). We have previously published that with ibrutinib, a first-in-class oral inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase and a standard of care treatment (tx) for R/R MCL, median PFS exceeded 2 years (yrs) when used at first relapse (Rule S, et al. Haematologica. 2018;104:e211-e214). Here we present an updated pooled analysis with 15 months (mos) of additional follow-up, and for the first time, a comparison of outcomes with ibrutinib versus the prior regimen. Methods Patients (pts) enrolled in SPARK (MCL2001; NCT01599949), RAY (MCL3001; NCT01646021), and PCYC-1104 (NCT01236391) received ibrutinib 560 mg orally once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity, and pts benefiting at end of study could enroll in the open-label long-term extension study CAN3001 (NCT01804686). Tumor response (by Cheson B, et al; 2007 criteria) and PFS were investigator assessed. Positron emission tomography scans were not routine but confirmatory for complete responses (CRs). Disease evaluations in CAN3001 were per routine clinical practice and pts could continue tx as long as clinically benefiting. For the regimen prior to ibrutinib, time to next tx (TTNT: date of first dose of prior regimen to date of first dose of ibrutinib) was used as a surrogate for PFS. Progression of disease (POD) on frontline tx was categorized as early (TTNT < 24 mos) or late (TTNT ≥ 24 mos). Medians are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results As of April 2019, the median (range) follow-up and exposure for 370 ibrutinib-treated pts (median 2 [range 1-9] prior lines of therapy [LOT]) were 41 (0.2-92.4) mos and 11.1 (0.03-92.4) mos, respectively, and 32/87 (37%) pts in CAN3001 remain on ibrutinib. Tx duration was ≥ 3 yrs in 22.4% of pts. At 5 yrs, PFS and overall survival (OS) rates (95% CI) were 19% (15-24) and 41% (35-47), respectively. Pts with 1 prior LOT and pts achieving CR had the best outcomes (Table). Median PFS and OS in pts with 1 prior LOT were 25.4 (17.5-51.8) and 61.6 (36.0-not estimable [NE]) mos, respectively (Figure A). Median PFS and OS in pts with CR were 67.7 (51.7-NE) mos and NR (NE-NE) mos, respectively. Overall, median PFS on ibrutinib was 12.5 (9.8-16.6) mos, while median TTNT on the prior regimen was 10.9 (9.1-12.6) mos (Figure B). PFS with ibrutinib was longer than TTNT on the prior regimen for 50% of pts and was ≥ 12 mos longer than TTNT on the prior regimen for 27% of pts. Factors ≥ 10% more common in pts achieving ≥ 12-mo longer PFS versus those who did not included low-risk simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI), no extranodal disease, no bulky disease (≥ 5 cm), nonblastoid histology, TP53 wild type, and best response of CR. Ninety-nine pts received ibrutinib in second line (44% ≥ 70 yrs old, 26% with high-risk sMIPI, 1% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2, 6% with blastoid variant). Forty-three of 99 pts (43%) had early frontline POD and 56 (57%) had late frontline POD. In pts with early frontline POD, median PFS with ibrutinib (13.8 [4.3-24.2] mos) was similar to median frontline TTNT (14.0 [12.0-16.1] mos); median duration of response (DOR) and OS on ibrutinib were 22.1 (10.6-35.6) and 23.5 (10.3-61.6) mos, respectively. In pts with late frontline POD, median PFS with ibrutinib (57.5 [31.1-NE] mos) was longer than median frontline TTNT (42.2 [35.2-46.5] mos); median DOR and OS on ibrutinib were NE (33.1-NE) and NE (51.9-NE), respectively. There was no late unexpected toxicity. Conclusions This pooled analysis of ibrutinib in R/R MCL with extended follow-up up to 7.5 yrs indicates a late plateau in the PFS curve with a significant number of pts experiencing remission > 5 yrs. Tx with ibrutinib in second versus later lines extended median PFS and increased likelihood of a CR. Pts achieving CRs with ibrutinib had durable responses, with a median duration > 5.5 yrs. Contrary to historical outcomes with CIT, half of all pts treated with ibrutinib experienced a longer PFS than with the prior regimen, and one quarter had ≥ 1 additional yr of benefit. In pts with early frontline POD, ibrutinib delivered a similar magnitude of PFS benefit in second line. In chemosensitive pts with late frontline POD, second-line ibrutinib PFS was 36% longer than frontline outcome. There was no notable emerging toxicity with additional follow-up. Disclosures Rule: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Napp: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: scientific advisory board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Other: scientific advisory board; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: scientific advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Other: scientific advisory board. Goy:Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hess:Celgene: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; CTI: Consultancy, Employment, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: personal fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Auer:Hartley Taylor: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: personal fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deshpande:Janssen: Employment. Parisi:Janssen: Employment. Wang:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aviara: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding.

e19041 Background: Achieving durable response in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive B-cell lymphoma (B-NHL) is challenging. Blinatumomab, a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) immunotherapy targeting CD19-expressing cancer cells, has shown promising efficacy in pts with R/R aggressive B-NHL. We report the durability of complete response (DOCR) in pts treated with blinatumomab. Methods: The DOCR in pts with R/R aggressive B-NHL responding to blinatumomab was assessed using data from two phase 2 studies (study 1 [N = 25], NCT01741792; study 2 [N = 41], NCT02910063) in pts with R/R aggressive B-NHL. CR was assessed using Cheson (study 1) and Lugano (study 2) criteria. Time-to-event variables were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Results: Baseline pt characteristics in the pooled analysis were: median age 59 years (range, 41–77); 54% men; 54% treatment refractory; median 2 lines of prior therapy (range, 1–7); and 15% with prior autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Of 25 pts treated with blinatumomab in study 1, 4 (16%) evaluable pts achieved CR. Of 41 pts treated with blinatumomab in study 2, 9 (22%) achieved CR. Median DOCR was not reached (Table). At a median follow-up of 9.1 months in the pooled analysis, 3 pts (23%) had relapsed (study 1, n = 2 [50%]; study 2, n = 1 [11%]). At 12 and 18 months, the KM probability of maintaining CR in the pooled analysis was 53.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5, 85.0). Conclusions: For pts with R/R aggressive B-NHL who received blinatumomab, a durable response is possible. Longer-term follow up is needed to fully characterize the DOCR to blinatumomab. Clinical trial information: NCT01741792; NCT02910063. [Table: see text]

Placental growth factor (PlGF), a VEGF-homolog implicated in tumor angiogenesis and adaptation to antiangiogenic therapy, is emerging as candidate target in malignancies. Here, we addressed the expression, function, and prognostic value of PlGF in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). PlGF was determined in NET patients' sera collected retrospectively (n=88) and prospectively (n=87) using Roche-Elecsys and correlated with clinicopathological data. Tumoral PlGF was evaluated by immunohistochemistry, effects of PlGF on proliferation and migration in vitro were assessed using different NET cell lines and effects on tumor growth in vivo in orthotopic xenografts. Circulating and tumoral PlGF was elevated in patients with pancreatic NETs (pNETs) compared with control sera and respective healthy tissue. De novo PlGF expression occurred primarily in the tumor stroma, suggesting paracrine stimulatory circuits. Indeed, PlGF enhanced NET proliferation and migration in vitro and, conversely, neutralizing antibodies to PlGF reduced tumor growth in vivo. Elevated circulating PlGF levels in NET patients correlated with advanced tumor grading and were associated with reduced tumor-related survival in pNETs. Subsequent determinations confirmed and extended our observation of elevated PlGF levels in a prospective cohort of grade 1 and grade 2 pNETs (n=30) and intestinal NETs (n=57). In low-grade pNETs, normal circulating PlGF levels were associated with better survival. In intestinal NETs, circulating PlGF above median emerged as an independent prognostic factor for shorter time-to-progression in multivariate analyses. These data assign to PlGF a novel function in the pathobiology of NETs and propose PlGF as a prognostic parameter and therapeutic target.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation has been shown to be feasible and highly effective in newly diagnosed primary central nervous system lymphoma. In this retrospective multicenter study, we investigated prognosis and baseline risk factors in patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma who underwent this treatment approach. We retrospectively analyzed 105 immunocompetent patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma who underwent high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation with or without whole brain radiotherapy as first-line consolidation treated at 12 German centers between 1997 and 2011. We estimated survival rates and investigated the impact of age, performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase level, and deep brain involvement on overall and progression-free survival. Patients were additionally categorized into three prognostic groups according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. After a median follow up of 47 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival was reached after 85 and 121 months; 2- and 5-year survival rates were 82% and 79%, respectively. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model did not predict survival. Only age revealed some evidence of prognostic relevance. Overall response rate was 95%; of those patients with progressive disease before high-dose chemotherapy, 7 of 20 achieved ongoing complete remission after therapy without whole brain radiation therapy. Transplantation-associated mortality was 2.8%. High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is a highly effective and safe treatment modality for selected primary central nervous system lymphoma patients. Superiority compared to standard chemotherapy still warrants further investigation.

The chemoimmunotherapy FCR (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with rituximab) is the standard first-line treatment for physically fit chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. To assess the risks and benefits, we investigated health-related quality of life (HRQOL). 817 untreated CLL patients received either FC or FCR within the GCLLSG CLL8 trial. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire C30 was sent to all patients at baseline, after 3, 6, and 12 months and then yearly as follow-up. A total of 769 (94%) of 817 patients completed at least one questionnaire. Comparing HRQOL of CLL patients with the general German population, CLL patients' health declined in most scales except for global health and pain. No major differences in HRQOL were found during treatment or follow-up between both treatment arms. Females were more likely to have treatment-related symptoms than males. Although FCR was associated with more side effects, this did not influence HRQOL. During follow-up after FCR only minor improvement of HRQOL compared with FC was assessed.

Approximately 1 % of all malignant solid tumours of the head and neck area are metastases from primary tumours beneath the clavicles. The aim of this study was to analyse the distribution of primary tumours since meta-analyses might have been biased due to the usually extraordinary character of case reports. All patient files from 1970 to 2012 from the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery unit at a University Hospital were analysed regarding the existence of metastases to the head and neck area from distant primaries. Of the seventy-three patients 18 had breast cancers (25 %), 9 melanomas (12 %), 8 tumours of the kidneys and 8 of the lungs (each 12 %), 3 colon cancers (6 %), 2 prostate cancers (3 %), 2 Ewing sarcomas (3 %), and 1 each of liposarcoma, esophagus, rectum, hepatocellular carcinoma, vulva, ovarian and testicular cancer. In 15 cases, a cancer of unknown primary was diagnosed. In 28 cases the metastasis was the initial sign of the malignant disease. Skeletal metastasis occurred in 37 cases and a soft tissue metastasis in 36 patients. The different primaries seem to metastasize in different frequencies to the head and neck area. The relatively common prostate cancer rarely seems to produce metastases in the head and neck area compared to cancers arising in the kidneys. In case of a malignant tumour of unknown primary, osseous metastases most often are caused by breast or lung cancer or renal cell carcinoma. Soft tissue metastases are most often caused by breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for patients with primary CNS lymphoma remains to be defined. Active therapies are often associated with increased risk of haematological or neurological toxicity. In this trial, we addressed the tolerability and efficacy of adding rituximab with or without thiotepa to methotrexate-cytarabine combination therapy (the MATRix regimen), followed by a second randomisation comparing consolidation with whole-brain radiotherapy or autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with primary CNS lymphoma. We report the results of the first randomisation in this Article.METHODS: For the international randomised phase 2 International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) trial, HIV-negative patients (aged 18-70 years) with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and measurable disease were enrolled from 53 cancer centres in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the UK) and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive four courses of methotrexate 3·5 g/m(2) on day 1 plus cytarabine 2 g/m(2) twice daily on days 2 and 3 (group A); or the same combination plus two doses of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days -5 and 0 (group B); or the same methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab combination plus thiotepa 30 mg/m(2) on day 4 (group C), with the three groups repeating treatment every 3 weeks. Patients with responsive or stable disease after the first stage were then randomly allocated between whole-brain radiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. A permuted blocks randomised design (block size four) was used for both randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation list was used within each stratum to preserve allocation concealment. Randomisation was stratified by IELSG risk score (low vs intermediate vs high). No masking after assignment to intervention was used. The primary endpoint of the first randomisation was the complete remission rate, analysed by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011920.FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2010, and Aug 27, 2014, 227 eligible patients were recruited. 219 of these 227 enrolled patients were assessable. At median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 22-38), patients treated with rituximab and thiotepa had a complete remission rate of 49% (95% CI 38-60), compared with 23% (14-31) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine alone (hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·28-0·74) and 30% (21-42) of those treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab (0·61, 0·40-0·94). Grade 4 haematological toxicity was more frequent in patients treated with methotrexate-cytarabine plus rituximab and thiotepa, but infective complications were similar in the three groups. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in all three groups were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and febrile neutropenia or infections. 13 (6%) patients died of toxicity.INTERPRETATION: With the limitations of a randomised phase 2 study design, the IELSG32 trial provides a high level of evidence supporting the use of MATRix combination as the new standard chemoimmunotherapy for patients aged up to 70 years with newly diagnosed primary CNS lymphoma and as the control group for future randomised trials.FUNDING: Associazione Italiana del Farmaco, Cancer Research UK, Oncosuisse, and Swiss National Foundation.

Relationships between patient characteristics, ofatumumab pharmacokinetics, and treatment outcomes were investigated in this phase 2 trial of ofatumumab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC) in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 500 or 1000 mg ofatumumab (Cycle 1; 300 mg) plus FC every 4 weeks for six cycles. Median C(max) and C(trough) values were similar at Cycle 1 regardless of the ultimate clinical outcome. At later doses, these values were higher for patients with complete response (CR) than for other patients. Higher C(max) and C(trough) values at Cycles 3 and 6 were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of CR, whereas ofatumumab pharmacokinetics were not associated with an objective response (OR) on the basis of univariate analyses. Multivariate analyses indicated that baseline patient/disease factors were predominantly associated with CR (17p status) or OR (bulky lymphadenopathy, gender, and serum thymidine kinase), rather than ofatumumab pharmacokinetics. Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00410163).

Purpose Blinatumomab is a CD19/CD3 BiTE (bispecific T-cell engager) antibody construct for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–negative acute B-lymphoblastic leukemia. We evaluated blinatumomab in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Patients and Methods This 3 + 3 design, phase I dose-escalation study determined adverse events and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of continuous intravenous infusion blinatumomab in patients with relapsed/refractory NHL. Blinatumomab was administered over 4 or 8 weeks at seven different dose levels (0.5 to 90 μg/m2/day). End points were incidence of adverse events, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and overall response rate. Results Between 2004 and 2011, 76 heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory NHL, who included 14 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, were enrolled; 42 received treatment in the formal dose-escalation phase. Neurologic events were dose limiting, and 60 μg/m2/day was established as the MTD. Thirty-four additional patients were recruited to evaluate antilymphoma activity and strategies for mitigating neurologic events at a prespecified MTD. Stepwise dosing (5 to 60 μg/m2/day) plus pentosan polysulfate SP54 (n = 3) resulted in no treatment discontinuations; single-step (n = 5) and double-step (n = 24) dosing entailed two and seven treatment discontinuations due to neurologic events, respectively. Grade 3 neurologic events occurred in 22% of patients (no grade 4/5). Among patients treated at 60 μg/m2/day (target dose; n = 35), the overall response rate was 69% across NHL subtypes and 55% for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n = 11); median response duration was 404 days (95% CI, 207 to 1,129 days). Conclusion In this phase I study of relapsed/refractory NHL, continuous infusion with CD19-targeted immunotherapy blinatumomab at various doses and schedules was feasible, with an MTD of 60 μg/m2/day. Single-agent blinatumomab showed antilymphoma activity.

In most patients, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) shows an aggressive clinical course with a continuous relapse pattern and a median survival of only 3-5 years. In the current study generation of the European MCL Network, the addition of high-dose Ara-C to R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone)-like regimen followed by myeloablative consolidation achieved a significant improvement of progression-free survival in younger patients. In elderly patients, rituximab maintenance led to a marked prolongation of remission duration. Emerging strategies include mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, proteasome inhibitors, immune modulatory drugs, Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors and others, all based on the dysregulated control of cell cycle machinery and impairment of several apoptotic pathways. Combination strategies are currently being investigated in numerous trials, but their introduction into clinical practice and current treatment algorithms remains a challenge. In the current survey, the application of the molecular targeted compounds were collected and evaluated by a representative national network of 14 haematological institutions. Optimised strategies are recommended for clinical routine. Future studies will apply individualised approaches according to the molecular risk profile of the patient.

Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Recently, along with the improved understanding of the pathophysiology of this disease, new first line regimens have been established and in addition novel treatment options have entered the clinical arena. In consequence, prognosis of the disease has fortunately improved. We here focus on the rationale, current clinical knowledge and future concepts of Temsirolimus, an inhibitor of mTOR, in the treatment of MCL. At this time this drug has been shown to be effective as single agent for relapsed disease and early combination data show promising results. In addition, with a brief outline of other treatment options, we aim to guide at which place in the current treatment algorithms Temsirolimus can be integrated into the treatment of MCL patients.

High sensitive Troponin (hsTn) assays enable detection of minimal marker elevation in heart failure patients previously deemed Troponin negative. Biovariability, reference change values (RCV), and index of individuality (II) have not been previously described for hsTnT although serial testing is important in interpreting low concentrations. For these values, a difference between ischemic heart disease (IHD) and dilated cardiomyopathy (dCMP) appears conceivable. Change in hsTnT was determined alongside with clinical variables in 41 patients with stable chronic systolic dysfunction at 2-week-, 1-month-, 2-month-, and 3-month-intervals (IHD n = 17; dCMP n = 24). HsTnT was detectable in all patients. Individual hsTnT-variations at 2-week, 1-month, 2-month, and 3-month follow-up were 7.2, 22.6, 28.9, and 15.7%, respectively, corresponding to RCVs of 20.1, 62.5, 80.0, and 43.3%, respectively, for crude values. For log-normalised values, individual variations were 3.2, 2.8, 2.7, and 3.5%, respectively, corresponding to RCVs of 8.8, 7.9, 7.6, and 9.7%, respectively. The II was 0.03 to 0.33 according to interval. Aetiology of heart failure was not a consistent determinant of variation (p = 0.28; p = 0.07; p = 0.98; p = 0.03 for 2-week, 1-month, 2-month, and 3-month follow-up, respectively). While short-term biological variation of hsTnT is low, it becomes relatively more important for intermediate follow-up. It is not related to aetiology of heart failure. The corresponding indices of individuality indicate high individuality of values.

Background: A substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently available salvage therapies are often ineffective and cannot be tolerated, especially for elderly patients. Thus, probably less than 25% of patients achieve a long lasting remission. Regimens like gemcitabine/oxaliplatin, or bendamustin, both in combination with rituximab are available for elderly or after failure of HDT, however induce only short lived responses. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody, with preclinical evidence of superiority over rituximab in xenograft models of MCL and DLBCL. Recently a large phase III trial failed to show a benefit in patients with untreated DLBCL, although a subset analysis showed a potential benefit in a subset GCB DLBCL of patients, its value in relapsed disease is not yet finally determined. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclines from relapse treatments. With pixantrone, a drug related to anthracyclines, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible, a best EOT-ORR of 37% (20% CR/CRu) was observed in a phase III trial. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q3/2015 and recruitment of 70 patients is completed as of 7/2018. Primary endpoint is the ORR, secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. We report about available data after enrollment of the last patient. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Main inclusion criteria: histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed iNHL (20% Quorum), no curative option available, relapsed and measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient BM reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit of prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of up to 6 cycles of pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. Interim staging was scheduled after 3 cycles. Results: Basic data are available of 67 patients, all were caucasian, 37 were female the other 30 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (49 pts, 68%), 68% had advanced stage at diagnosis and the median secondary IPI was 3. Data collection is ongoing, until now data of 32 patients are fully available and updated results will be presented. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Treatment seemed to be well tolerated, median number of cycles applied was 3, pre-mature stop of treatment was primarily based on progression. Response evaluation: at this time 13/32 (40.6%) evaluable patients responded with 5 patients achieving CR/CRu (15.6%) and 8 a PR. One year after initiation of treatment 54% of patients remained alive. Median follow up is 8.2 months. Median PFS and OS is 82 day and not reached, 1 year PFS and OS are 37% and 54%, respectively, no patient experienced relapse if the patient remained free from relapse at one year. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed: leukopenia (9.4%) neutropenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (12.5%). The febrile neutropenia rate was 6.3%. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were very rare, no single side effect was observed with a frequency of 5% or more. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone is feasible and safe. Early response rates are interesting. Importantly, although some patients experience progress early, a promising proportion shows long lasting remissions. Molecular analyses are ongoing, as well as a detailed analysis on the impact of factors such as of number of prior treatments, status at inclusion. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hess: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Marks:BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Dreyling:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Keller:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lenz:Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: In CLL, chemoimmunotherapies (CIT) and combinations with novel agents have proven to be highly effective with regard to eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), while complete remissions (CR) are frequently not achieved due to residual lymphadenopathy. We have previously reported that minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity after CIT is a prognostic factor irrespective of the clinical response (Kovacs et al., JCO 2016). Because inferior outcome was observed in small subgroups of patients (pts) with residual lymphadenopathy, we analyzed the prognostic value of residual lymphadenopathy after CIT in comparison to MRD detection in a larger pt population. Methods: We included 361 pts receiving frontline CIT within 3 prospective clinical trials of the GCLLSG (CLL2M: 23 pts, CLL8: 113 pts, CLL10: 225 pts) with available CT/MRI scans to assess abdominal lymphadenopathy at the final restaging (FR; 2 months after the end of last treatment cycle). Pts with available data on all classical lymph node regions (N=217) were analyzed separately (Figure 1). Enlarged lymph nodes (LN+) were defined as >1.5 cm in the longest diameter according to iwCLL 2008 guidelines regardless of the investigator-assessed response category. MRD levels in peripheral blood (PB) were assessed at FR. PFS and OS was analyzed from time point of radiological assessment. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Cox regression modelling. Results: Of the 361 pts included in this analysis, 227 (62.9%) received fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) and 134 (37.1%) pts received bendamustine and R (BR). Median age was 60 years (range, 34-79); median observation time was 55.8 months (mo) (3.2-85.5). 62 (17.2%) pts had residual abdominal LN+, 299 (82.8%) had no residual abdominal lymphadenopathy (LN-) at FR. Of 217 pts with documented CT/MRI of all LN regions at FR, 48 (22.1%) pts had residual LN+ in at least one LN region and 169 (77.9%) showed no residual LN in any of the regions. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed between pts with and without available radiological assessments, between pts with radiological assessments of all regions or only abdominal and between LN+ and LN- pts. MRD in PB was available for 231 (64.0%) pts in this analysis group; of these, 165 pts (71.4%) showed MRD negativity (MRD-) at FR. PFS and OS were analyzed for different LN size categories (≤1 cm; >1 & ≤2 cm; >2 & ≤3 cm; >3 cm). Patient outcome decreased with larger residual abdominal LN size at FR with regard to PFS (median, 52.9 mo vs. 24.6 mo vs. 30.5 mo vs. 10.6 mo; p1.5 cm in any lymph node region, PFS and OS was significantly worse compared to LN- pts (median PFS: 27.3 mo vs. 60.4 mo; HR 2.409; CI=1.622-3.577; p In the MRD- group, PFS was significantly shorter in MRD-/LN+ pts compared to MRD-/LN- pts (abdominal LN: median, 34.7 mo vs. 75.6 mo; HR 2.150; CI=1.190-3.883; p=0.011; any LN: median, 34.7 mo vs. 75.6 mo; HR 2.343; CI=1.221-4.497; p=0.01). This observation was confirmed for OS (abdominal LN: 5-year survival, 52.9% vs. 88.8%; HR 3.153; CI=1.183-8.407; p=0.022; any LN: 5-year survival, 61.9% vs. 94.3%; HR 4.213; CI=1.179-15.016; p=0.027) (Figures 2 & 3). Conclusions: Residual abdominal lymphadenopathy at FR is an independent prognostic factor for PFS and OS regardless of MRD negativity. It remains to be determined whether these findings can be transferred to novel targeted agents such as kinase inhibitors, venetoclax, novel CD20 antibodies or combinations of these. Residual disease in the lymph node compartment may identify a pt population which might benfit from strategies using consolidation therapies. Disclosures Bahlo: Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants. Fink:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: travel geants; Roche: Other: travel grants; Mundipharma: Other: travel grants. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hess:CTI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ritgen:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding. Kneba:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Döhner:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AROG Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celator: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Wendtner:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Goede:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy. Fischer:Roche: Other: Travel support. Böttcher:Genentech: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Hallek:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Eichhorst:AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding.